merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (05/15/91)
[ please note that i am under the buzz of a couple beers (a lot for me) and i really probably shouldn't be posting right now, but what the heck. ] [ see end of article for pleas for help ] [ speaking as jim@lsuc.on.ca, for reasons illustrated below ] [ lsuc.on.ca is a "central" mail hub in toronto, all connections are via dial-up, no TCP, no SLIP, just uucp ] it seems that every 6 weeks or so, some bonehead on one of our ~75 mail connections, decides to BITFTP something huge. first it was a 60 Meg VMS utility (attributed to ignorance). next it was a 12 Meg VMS uucp suite (same bonehead, attributed to lack of respect of the 'net) [ BTW: the bonehead in this case, when contacted via voice, told me "if you can handle the volume, get out of the gateway business", to which i (wished) i said "fuck you and the mutant OS you live in" ] last night it was another bonehead ordering gcc source and gas source (16 Meg) (attributed to ignorance). [ the mail processing on this bopped the load average up to 17.00+, as well as "discovering" some bad blocks on the drive which the system want's to use for inode tables. do i need this? ] i've about had my fill of this. effective now, we will be developing scanners to trash BITFTP and listserve type requests flowing via lsuc. that is requests and responses. (any hints on keywords would be appreciated) lsuc's mail/uucp system over flowed last night, resulting in unknown quantities of news and mail being dropped on the floor. coincidentally, our news partition ran out of inodes at the same time and the entire disk seems trashed. i spent an hour and a half (11:30pm - 1:00am) last night, doing damage control from at home (in kitchener). i still managed to get up and catch my bus into toronto. today (Tuesday), i spent no less than 3 hours trying to put the disk back together so we could get news and mail back up. i had to leave before the job was done (pre-natal class at 7:00pm in kitchener) and i had to leave instructions on how to shut down news before i left. when i got home, i called in and news was shut down (newsrunning off). i'm not sure what kind of news loss we'll have (major for sure) and i don't know if mail is totally functional. (the file systems were messed up) i am really peaved. [ ok jim, calm down (previous 6 lines of expletives deleted) ] Education! Education! Education! Education! Education! Education! Education! Education! we can put in place all the filters we want, but the only way to resolve this issue of file transfer by email is Education. Henry Spencer defined email at a user group meeting as (paraphrase from (currently fuzzy) memory) "text entered by hand, ie. not machine generated". file transfer by email would be fine if all of the hubs had infinite disk space for spooling stuff up to dial-up sites, but we don't. i might also note that in all 3 cases of abuse, the requested items were more than likely available locally. and if not, were of interest to the local community (ie. someone at UofToronto could have ftp'd it). please tell your users to post to the local *.general groups to see if it is local. .... how much of a net.lobby do we have to do to get pucc.princeton.edu to shut down BITFTP? can we at least get them to limit responses to systems that can be verified as being on BITNET (as i assume the system was intended)? or maybe, get them to limit responses to "official" internet sites? grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!! this really pisses me off. HELP: i am looking for the following "tools": - Cnews spacefor that checks remaining inodes as well as free blocks - efficient rmail frontend which will "act" on key phrases in the To: and From_ headers - how to mark bad blocks on a 3B2/500 (SysV 3.2.1) please reply to jim@lsuc.on.ca (as i have tried to set the Reply-To: header) thanx -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "Anarchists Unite!" - seen spray painted on a wall ]
carlo@electro.com (Carlo Sgro) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May15.042146.29800@iguana.uucp> jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes: >it seems that every 6 weeks or so, some bonehead on one of our ~75 mail >connections, decides to BITFTP something huge. My sympathies. We are a smaller site with a few connections and plenty of disk space but no modem power (2400 baud max. speed). We have had so many problems with people using BITFTP (and other large file transfer) tying up our lines (and our main feeds' lines) that we have had to drastically restrict mail through our site. Luckily, we have had cooperation from those connected to us (and those downstream from them). >effective now, we will be developing scanners to trash BITFTP and listserve >type requests flowing via lsuc. I'm sure that I and many others would be interested in this, but ... >we can put in place all the filters we want, but the only way to resolve this >issue of file transfer by email is Education. > ... >i might also note that in all 3 cases of abuse, the requested items were more >than likely available locally. and if not, were of interest to the local >community (ie. someone at UofToronto could have ftp'd it). Damn right! There are people out there who believe that having a modem and a UUCP connection means that they have god-given rights to do whatever they want. There are many, many more that don't believe anything much but just fail to think before they act. We at Electrohome might seem like a large company with money to spend on Telebits and disks and the such. However, there are private systems who have better setups than we do. The bean-counters don't know anything about UUCP connectivity. We're probably lucky for that. However, it also means that a Telebit is something that I've tried to get for almost 3 years. We depend on the good grace of the large sites to which we connect. We simply don't have the resources and can't risk losing the good grace of our neighbours by transferring large reams of BITFTP stuff that could be more easily obtained by using a bit of resourcefulness. >please tell your users to post to the local *.general groups to see if >it is local. Would it be a desirable thing to set up local groups specifically for this sort of thing? I would think that it would be easier for a neophyte leaf admin to find out about kw.software (as an example) than to find out about BITFTP. -- Carlo Sgro Not a card-carrying member of the watmath!watcgl!electro!carlo Laurie Bower Singers Fan Club. carlo@electro.com System Administrator, Electrohome, Ltd., Kitchener, ON, (519)744-7111x7210
tower@buitc.bu.edu (Leonard (Len) H. Tower Jr.) (05/16/91)
You might talk to the folks who run the BITFTP gateway, and see if they could slow down the rate at which they mail a large request. 50k an hour? That requires them to have a lot of spooling space, but would limit the harm done small systems who forward mail themselves. Brian Reid's mail-based server (in use at a lot of Unix sites) does something like this on a per-address basis. You might also see if you can configure your mailer to bounch (or bit-bucket (if you want to be rude)) messages larger then a certain size (64k is traditional between UUCP hosts, though I've seen limits as small as 25k from some of the oversea gateway machines). I personally think any mail-based server that distributes any large packages (source, data, et al) is doing a dis-service to the Matrix (the world wide net as defined by John Quarterman). It causes sites who are willing to enlarge the community by passing small quantities of human generated mail along to stop cooperating due to resource use much larger then they can handle. This makes the net a smaller and less useful community for all of us. thanx -len
jim@crom2.uucp (James P. H. Fuller) (05/17/91)
schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes: > Most service providers are interesting in guaranteeing a level of service > reliability every hour of every day of the year, across all of their > customers. No one every succeeds, but that is the goal, if you get > 95%+ you survive, if you get 99.9%+ you thrive. > > Mailing files is one of those things that doesn't work very reliably, > due to many factors from error correction, to memory utilization, to > installed base of mailer constraits, to resource constraints, etc. > I've seen this debate for a decade, and I'm sure it continue forever. > >To transfer files we use a tried and true mechanism: FTP. Can you say "0% reliability?" FTP to uucp-only sites doesn't work AT ALL. What's your advice for them? "Screw you, Jack, I've got mine?" Harrumph! Jim ------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- crom2 Athens GA Public Access Unix | i486 AT, 16mb RAM, 600mb online | AT&T Unix System V release 3.2 Molecular Biology | Tbit PEP 19200bps V.32 V.42/V.42bis Population Biology | Ecological Modeling | Admin: James P. H. Fuller Bionet/Usenet/cnews/nn | {jim,root}%crom2@nstar.rn.com ------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu (05/17/91)
jim@crom2.uucp writes: >To transfer files we use a tried and true mechanism: FTP. Can you say "0% reliability?" FTP to uucp-only sites doesn't work AT ALL. What's your advice for them? "Screw you, Jack, I've got mine?" Harrumph! Oh, blow it out your ear. It was positively routine when I ran osu-cis' archives to get mail from people saying, "I've been told that there's a package called bletch.tar.Z living on foo.bar.baz:pub/extraneous and I really need to pick it up. Could you possibly make it available on osu-cis?" I only turned down requests like that about 5 times in 5 years. Most of the time was when we were in serious disc space trouble; once, someone wanted a 50Mbyte package. But there's currently ~200Mbytes on osu-cis mostly unused. My advice to UUCP-only sites: Go ask for help before screaming about the inability of any of the existing mechanisms to do the job for you. Harrumph, yourself. Tone down your attitude. [As for whether the current maintainers of osu-cis' archives still work that way, I don't know. Load on its seemingly ever-dwindling staff may have made it an untenable proposition.]
jbuck@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Buck) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May16.224338.286@crom2.uucp> jim@crom2.uucp (James P. H. Fuller) writes: >>To transfer files we use a tried and true mechanism: FTP. > > Can you say "0% reliability?" FTP to uucp-only sites doesn't work >AT ALL. What's your advice for them? "Screw you, Jack, I've got mine?" >Harrumph! No, the answer for UUCP-only sites who can't anonymous FTP is to anonymous UUCP. There are a number of sites that provide this service; osu-cis, uunet (in addition to providing the service for regular customers, they have a 900 number so anyone can use the service). The answer to reducing the long distance charges is for UUCP-only folks to set up more archive sites and more anonymous UUCP sites. For those that wail, "but it costs money if I do that", it costs money whether you place the call yourself or pass the bill onto someone else. Sites on the Internet are paying for their access. Sites with long-distance UUCP connections are paying phone bills and (in some cases) access charges. No one's saying "Screw you, Jack"; you have alternatives. They are simply saying that they won't subsidize your large file transfers. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@janus.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!janus.berkeley.edu!jbuck
schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May16.224338.286@crom2.uucp> jim@crom2.uucp (James P. H. Fuller) writes: > > Can you say "0% reliability?" FTP to uucp-only sites doesn't work >AT ALL. What's your advice for them? "Screw you, Jack, I've got mine?" >Harrumph! > Jim I'm REAL familiar with the fact that UUCP sites don't have FTP access, but you can't be critical if you have PORCHE tastes on a YUGO budget. Marty
stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) (05/18/91)
karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu writes: > jim@crom2.uucp writes: > >To transfer files we use a tried and true mechanism: FTP. > > Can you say "0% reliability?" FTP to uucp-only sites doesn't work > AT ALL. What's your advice for them? "Screw you, Jack, I've got mine?" > Harrumph! > > Oh, blow it out your ear. > > It was positively routine when I ran osu-cis' archives to get mail > from people saying, "I've been told that there's a package called > bletch.tar.Z living on foo.bar.baz:pub/extraneous and I really need to > pick it up. Could you possibly make it available on osu-cis?" Based on past experience with PSI, and on the posting from them on this matter, I can predict with certainty what their response will be were I to ask them to do something like that. "Pay us more money and you can ftp it yourself." (Past experience: when PSI was hyping their telnet-able white pages, I asked if there was a way that UUCP sites could access it. The answer was "Pay us more money for a higher level account." )
merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May16.224338.286@crom2.uucp> jim@crom2.uucp (James P. H. Fuller) writes: >schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes: >>To transfer files we use a tried and true mechanism: FTP. > > Can you say "0% reliability?" FTP to uucp-only sites doesn't work >AT ALL. What's your advice for them? "Screw you, Jack, I've got mine?" >Harrumph! agreed, FTP is an direct internet only facility. why not use the next best thing in your case? direct uucp connection. To which joe.user@site.uucp (Joe User) MIGHT SAY: > that costs money. too fucking bad, better your money/time/disk than mine. -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "Anarchists Unite!" - seen spray painted on a wall ]
andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May15.135732.9749@electro.com> carlo@electro.UUCP (Carlo Sgro) writes: >Would it be a desirable thing to set up local groups specifically for this >sort of thing? I would think that it would be easier for a neophyte leaf >admin to find out about kw.software (as an example) than to find out about >BITFTP. There have been occasional postings in ont.archives, can.usrgroup, and {kw,ont,can}.uucp newsgroups asking for software locally. It may be desirable to have local newsgroups with more descriptive and consistent names. Otherwise, use the existing local *.uucp and *.archives newgroups. -- Andy Toy, Department of Computing Services, Extension 31, second floor annex
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May17.200736.8137@uu.psi.com> schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes: > I'm REAL familiar with the fact that UUCP sites don't have FTP access, > but you can't be critical if you have PORCHE tastes on a YUGO budget. Marty. I'm willing to rent a Porsche. You have one, but you only rent to people that already have one. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May17.183950.25550@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Buck) writes: > The answer to reducing > the long distance charges is for UUCP-only folks to set up more archive > sites and more anonymous UUCP sites. For those that wail, "but it costs > money if I do that", it costs money whether you place the call yourself > or pass the bill onto someone else. It's not the money, it's the inconvenience. You have to: 1) find a site with the package that allows anon-uucp. a) Alternatively, ask some kind soul to ftp it to such a site. 2) Establish a chat script for that particular site. This is an interactive, often labor intensive, and tedious business. a) You have to be the system operator to do this. This adds to the load for system admins. 3) Poll the site. Instead you could do this: 1) send a message to a mailserver. 2) Unpack the file from a bunch of little messages into an archive. Ideally, you should be able to do this: 1) Queue a uux for that RFTP request. > No one's saying "Screw you, Jack"; you have alternatives. They are simply > saying that they won't subsidize your large file transfers. Fine. They gonna pay me the overtime for all the stuff that our developers want or need, that I have to set up and poll myself because of the problems establishing a reliable UUCP connection? -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (05/18/91)
<asbestos underwear on> jbuck@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Buck) writes: >No, the answer for UUCP-only sites who can't anonymous FTP is to anonymous >UUCP. There are a number of sites that provide this service; osu-cis, >uunet (in addition to providing the service for regular customers, they >have a 900 number so anyone can use the service). The problem here is that many UUCP-only sites are looking for a free ride. <asbestos underwear off> MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan / Since I *OWN* SBS.COM, -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / These Opinions Generally -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / Represent The Opinions Of -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / My Company...
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May17.183950.25550@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Buck) writes: >No, the answer for UUCP-only sites who can't anonymous FTP is to anonymous >UUCP. There are a number of sites that provide this service; osu-cis, >uunet (in addition to providing the service for regular customers, they >have a 900 number so anyone can use the service). Not the same at all. Has anyone measured the average time between when a posting appears in comp.archives about some program's availability and the time it appears in an anon-uucp site? In most cases it's somewhere approaching infinity... And, when they do show up there, how do you find out about it? Are you supposed to uucp the huge ls-lR.Z file daily? Plus, there's the problem that the ftp'able version is always kept up-to-date on its home site but the uucp-able copies may have dozens of bugs that can cost the users months of work to fix. Don't take this as a flame towards the maintainers of the anon-uucp sites. I do use and appreciate their services, but it's an impossible job. >The answer to reducing >the long distance charges is for UUCP-only folks to set up more archive >sites and more anonymous UUCP sites. For those that wail, "but it costs >money if I do that", it costs money whether you place the call yourself >or pass the bill onto someone else. I don't have a problem with the phone charges or uunet-style access fees. $100/month will shovel a heck of a lot of source code through uunet. I'm not asking anyone but my organization to pay this, and I can point out to them that it's cheaper and faster than paying someone to write similar code at the typical 30 lines per day rate. The LD charges are the least of the problem anyway. Unless you have an archive site that is a local no-cost call (and around the Chicago area there is hardly any such thing as a local call) it probably won't cost any more to call a different state across the country. >No one's saying "Screw you, Jack"; you have alternatives. They are simply >saying that they won't subsidize your large file transfers. And what's the alternative that lets me get a current directory listing from an ftp site that has offered to make something available? Uunet has someone that handles ftp requests, but I would feel uncomfortable asking a person to check a remote directory on a weekly basis. It didn't bother me at all to make such requests through bitftp. Obviously, the answer is to automate the requests at the uucp <-> internet gateways like uunet and other sites that want to offer similar services but the existing software doesn't provide any real support for queuing files for anon-uucp, or mail to accounts that haven't been pre-arranged. Maybe uunet could put up a kermit server login on the 900 number and build in a little magic so a remote GET host:path would find anything in the world. For their subscribers, a mail server that only queued for direct connections would work, or a uux'able command. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May17.200736.8137@uu.psi.com> schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes: >I'm REAL familiar with the fact that UUCP sites don't have FTP access, >but you can't be critical if you have PORCHE tastes on a YUGO budget. I'd guess that most FTP users just want the files delivered and don't really care about the vehicle. In fact, given a choice, most people would probably prefer uucp's automatic queuing mechanism if the remote site can't be reached on the first attempt. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (05/19/91)
Peter da Silva writes:
# 1) find a site with the package that allows anon-uucp.
UUnet is always there. And they have 1-900 numbers.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wmerce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (05/19/91)
In article <30EBM2G@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991May17.183950.25550@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Buck) writes: >> No one's saying "Screw you, Jack"; you have alternatives. They are simply >> saying that they won't subsidize your large file transfers. > >Fine. They gonna pay me the overtime for all the stuff that our developers >want or need, that I have to set up and poll myself because of the problems >establishing a reliable UUCP connection? can you say "a cost of doing business" ? i thought you could. -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "Anarchists Unite!" - seen spray painted on a wall ]
emv@ox.com (Ed Vielmetti) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May18.172953.3331@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >No, the answer for UUCP-only sites who can't anonymous FTP is to anonymous >UUCP. There are a number of sites that provide this service; osu-cis, >uunet (in addition to providing the service for regular customers, they >have a 900 number so anyone can use the service). Not the same at all. Has anyone measured the average time between when a posting appears in comp.archives about some program's availability and the time it appears in an anon-uucp site? In most cases it's somewhere approaching infinity... I am prepared to say that MSEN will be able to ensure that as soon as a posting appears on comp.archives, it will be available through the MSEN archive service. (How can I promise this? Easy. I run comp.archives.) Since no one has infinite disk storages, there may be time lags for huge packages or for things announced a long time ago; getting the details right of the caching and refreshing of these packages to make sure there's not stale old stuff on disk is this summer's work. The key information (5000+ descriptions and locations of software packages) have already been taken care of. Our prices should be competetive with other internet service providers, and I think we can do a good job. For more information contact info@msen.com. --Ed Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, MSEN Inc. emv@msen.com
wgb@balkan.TNT.COM (William G. Bunton) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May18.190644.27513@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >Peter da Silva writes: ># 1) find a site with the package that allows anon-uucp. > >UUnet is always there. And they have 1-900 numbers. And some of us, due to children or other excuses, have to have 900 blocking in place. -- William G. Bunton | Since it's documented to be possible, I wgb@balkan.tnt.com | can't call it a bug. Tools & Techniques, Austin, TX | -- Bill Davidsen
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May18.190644.27513@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: > Peter da Silva writes: > # 1) find a site with the package that allows anon-uucp. > UUnet is always there. And they have 1-900 numbers. And they have 1-800 numbers for subscribers, too. I've been there. They don't have everything. They don't have TCL. They don't have MX or TX. They only have STDWIN because Guido put it in the amiga-sources area while I was the moderator of amiga-sources. That's the problem. Partly because of FTP, nobody has everything. And because of FTP, they shouldn't have to. So you get back to 1) find a site with the package that allows anon-uucp. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/19/91)
In article <1991May18.203937.9443@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: > >Fine. They gonna pay me the overtime for all the stuff that our developers > >want or need, that I have to set up and poll myself because of the problems > >establishing a reliable UUCP connection? > can you say "a cost of doing business" ? Can you say "we're already paying for the mail service, why should we pay twice?"? Can you say "We're quite willing to pay for access to a reliable service for things like this... in fact we're already doing so."? I can. Because we are. Playing games with half a dozen archive servers, trying to talk one of them into copying software in, and so on... it's insane. I get better service from the public library system, and I'm not a paying customer (except in as much as I'm a taxpayer... but let's not get into tax subsidized networks). -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
6sigma2@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May18.190644.27513@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: |UUnet is always there. And they have 1-900 numbers. In my experience, uunet has about half of the things I would like to ftp, and most of those are available at numerous other anon UUCP archives. It's that other half that aren't available at at any anon UUCP site that made bitftp useful. -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP
mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May18.043931.7094@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: [...] > >too fucking bad, better your money/time/disk than mine. > >-- >[ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] >[ "Anarchists Unite!" - seen spray painted on a wall ] Clearly a forgery, since Jim would never write such a line, especially since he doesn't write the check for the bill for an Internet connection, and it isn't his money (or disk, for that matter). Might be his time, but he probably gets paid for it, as is implied by the "work:" in the .sig. Again, clearly a forgery. -- Mike Murphy mrm@Sceard.COM ucsd!sceard!mrm +1 619 598 5874
gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (05/20/91)
Me: #>UUnet is always there. And they have 1-900 numbers. William G. Bunton: #And some of us, due to children or other excuses, have to have 900 #blocking in place. That is your decision, hence your problem. UUnet also has 1-800 numbers. Don't tell me you have those blocked also. -- -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (05/20/91)
If the NSF would permit it, I am sure somebody could be convinced to set up a 1-900 number which connects you to a variant of FTP that lets you rout around in anonymous FTP directories (or any others you have permissions for) and download from them. I say a variant becuase you don't want to copy the file to the local host and then uucp it at 900 prices, you would rather the socket from the archive host be connected directly to a zmodem send program, for example. Or a very clever uucp that, assuming you know what you want, can uucp a file like sitename:file for you using anonymous FTP. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May19.133104.11572@balkan.TNT.COM> wgb@balkan.TNT.COM (William G. Bunton) writes: >And some of us, due to children or other excuses, have to have 900 >blocking in place. On your uucp line? Common, be real. -- Randy Suess randy@chinet.chi.il.us
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (05/20/91)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: | |Can you say "we're already paying for the mail service, why should we pay |twice?"? Can you say "We're quite willing to pay for access to a reliable |service for things like this... in fact we're already doing so."? it would seem that you should join BITNET then. or contract with some other service that can provide you with what you need. -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet) opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise.
randy@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush) (05/20/91)
wgb@balkan.TNT.COM (William G. Bunton) writes: >> UUnet is always there. And they have 1-900 numbers. > And some of us, due to children or other excuses, have to have 900 > blocking in place. And some of us, do to immaturity at downstream sites, have to have MBAS blocking in place. -- randy@psg.com ..!uunet!m2xenix!randy
lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) (05/20/91)
6sigma2@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: >In article <1991May18.190644.27513@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >In my experience, uunet has about half of the things I would like to >ftp, and most of those are available at numerous other anon UUCP archives. Which is why sending a request to ftp-request@uunet.uu.net asking for the package/software/whatever is a Good Thing To Do. -- Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University atha!cs.athabascau.ca!lyndon || lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca Packet: ve6bbm@ve6mc.ab.can.noam The only thing open about OSF is their mouth. --Chuck Musciano
eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew happily using ksh) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May19.133104.11572@balkan.TNT.COM> wgb@balkan.TNT.COM (William G. Bunton) writes: >>UUnet is always there. And they have 1-900 numbers. > >And some of us, due to children or other excuses, have to have 900 >blocking in place. >-- >William G. Bunton | wgb@balkan.tnt.com Oh, I can't resist this.... You have 900 blocking in place on your _modem_ lines?? It'd be rather trivial to write a little filter to check for `logname` before allowing your "kids or other excuses" access to any of your modem utilities. -- Ed. A. Hew, <edhew@xenitec.on.ca> ..!{watmath|lsuc}!xenitec!eah XeniTec Consulting Services, Kitchener, ON, Canada (519) 570-9848 [biz.sco.{opendesktop,general,announce} newsgroup/mlists person.]
merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (05/20/91)
In article <+.EB_VA@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991May18.203937.9443@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: >> >Fine. They gonna pay me the overtime for all the stuff that our developers >> >want or need, that I have to set up and poll myself because of the problems >> >establishing a reliable UUCP connection? > >> can you say "a cost of doing business" ? > >Can you say "we're already paying for the mail service, why should we pay >twice?"? if MBAS's were only a plague on hubs that sell their services, i wouldn't have a problem, but they do tend to clog those of us generous enough to provide those services for free. if you are paying for mail service, bitch to your service provider. if they aren't good enough, change providers. if no provider can do a good enough job, start your own. >Can you say "We're quite willing to pay for access to a reliable >service for things like this... in fact we're already doing so."? if you have reliable service, what's your beef? -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "Anarchists Unite!" - seen spray painted on a wall ]
merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May19.183202.5575@sceard.Sceard.COM> mrm@Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) writes: >In article <1991May18.043931.7094@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: >[...] >> >>too fucking bad, better your money/time/disk than mine. >> >>-- >>[ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] >>[ "Anarchists Unite!" - seen spray painted on a wall ] > >Clearly a forgery, since Jim would never write such a line, especially since he >doesn't write the check for the bill for an Internet connection, and it isn't >his money (or disk, for that matter). Might be his time, but he probably gets >paid for it, as is implied by the "work:" in the .sig. > >Again, clearly a forgery. not a forgery. (changed my .sig as it seems to conflict with my actions according to some of the email i've gotten.) the "mine" in the message, was an organizational "mine", as opposed to a personal "mine". the money/time/disk is paid for by my employer, but that does not imply that it is open to use by any person with an email account. also, my paid time is supposed to be directed at supporting the other employees. much of the news and mail administration is done on my own free time. we, like many other systems on USENET, store and forward news and mail out of a co-operative spirit. seems to me that the direction of the net is towards greed and ignorance. dare i say, immenent (sp?) death of the net(tm). -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "Clickity-Click, Barba-Trick" - The Barbapapas ]
merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (05/20/91)
>In article <1991May19.133104.11572@balkan.TNT.COM> wgb@balkan.TNT.COM (William G. Bunton) writes: >And some of us, due to children or other excuses, have to have 900 >blocking in place. Others have wriiten to the extent: >You have 900 blocking in place on your _modem_ lines?? yes, it is true. there are some people out there who do not have dedicated lines for their home machines. (maybe even work machines). -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "Clickity-Click, Barba-Trick" - The Barbapapas ]
merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (05/20/91)
In article <01a722w163w@phoenix.com> stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: >merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: > >> too fucking bad, better your money/time/disk than mine. > > If you don't want to be a mail server, then stop doing it. If you don't >want to carry mail to or from bitftp, don't do it. If you can't handle the >traffic, then get out of the kitchen. Don't demand that the world stop >just because you want off. this sounds all too familiar. about 2 months ago, some bonehead decided he HAD TO HAVE some VMS utility package. so, off he goes and BITFTP's it. 60Meg before uuencoding and mail chunking plus headers. it starts trickling through the internet at 56K or whatever, hit the University of Toronto, then slowly weasels it's way onto lsuc. quite a bit got queued up on lsuc before we established a link to bonehead's site. then we had a bi-directional connection going. worked fine, until bonehead's disk filled up. then lsuc's disk filled up. by that time, the rest had ended up in UofT's queues. we gutted it and cleaned up, it didn't do too much damage. i figure, this is a bit of a problem, better voice the sysadmin. sysadmin says sorry, and i don't feel like cutting a large company's connection for one bonehead user's mistake. so i get the bonehead's number and give him a personal talking to. he had almost the exact same thing to say. if you can't deal with the heat, get out of the kitchen. > If you don't want to be a mail server, then stop doing it. we want to maintain connectivity, and will continue to do it. >If you don't want to carry mail to or from bitftp, don't do it. problem solved. 8^) please remember, i did not DEMAND that bitftp shut down, all i did was ask how much of a lobby it would take to shut it down. turns out it didn't take much. if a single sysadmin from a backwater town like Toronto can force a life-giving service of USENET to shut down, you might think that there were other complaints as well. when did i achieve net.god status? >If you can't handle the traffic, then get out of the kitchen. >Don't demand that the world stop just because you want off. i did not demand anything of the world. end users seem to be really pissed off now that their free ride is over. it's funny, you know, i get thank you letters from sysadmins and hate mail from end users. also, your previous posts in comp.mail.uucp are starting to blame the entire province of Ontario for the timely death of BITFTP. why do you insist on escalating the blame for this from one individual who posted an article explaining his grief and asking for some helpful hints, to blaming an entire region? the uucp community of Ontario is about to suffer a very large hit on their connectivity. this will mean that they will come to depend on sites like lsuc, who will store and forward their messages. lsuc has been a part of the USENET community for some 8 years (more? i've only been here for 2 years). they are well respected in the Toronto uucp community. i hope your connections are well aware of your total lack of respect for their resources. -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "Clickity-Click, Barba-Trick" - The Barbapapas ]
schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) (05/20/91)
I kind of doubt if anyone said that a telnet'able resource could be available through ftp. I think we know the difference between telnet and ftp. Marty ----------- In article <B9D525w163w@phoenix.com> stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: > > Based on past experience with PSI, and on the posting from them >on this matter, I can predict with certainty what their response will >be were I to ask them to do something like that. > > "Pay us more money and you can ftp it yourself." > >(Past experience: when PSI was hyping their telnet-able white pages, >I asked if there was a way that UUCP sites could access it. The answer >was "Pay us more money for a higher level account." ) >
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/20/91)
Speaking of communication problems: I'm not arguing for MBAS. Never have. In article <1991May20.062932.13623@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: > if MBAS's were only a plague on hubs that sell their services, i wouldn't > have a problem, but they do tend to clog those of us generous enough to > provide those services for free. That's why I'm arguing for a workable alternative to mail based archive servers. We have an evolutionary niche for them. If we scratch the niche we scratch the itch. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
timk@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca (Tim Kuehn) (05/20/91)
In <1991May20.064047.13740@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: >seems to me that the direction of the net is towards greed and ignorance. > >dare i say, immenent (sp?) death of the net(tm). I'd think it's more likely "imminent change in the fundamental nature of the net from free co-operative sharing of resources in a reasonable manner" to a "you want it? You pay for it!" situation due to the net.abusers out there who can't seem to get it through their head that services provided out of the good will of others who are paying the bill for their services can pull the plug just like that if their good will is abused once too often. >[ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] >[ "Clickity-Click, Barba-Trick" - The Barbapapas ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Kuehn TDK Consulting Services (519)-888-0766 timk@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca -or- !{watmath|lsuc}!xenitec!wynnds!timk Valpo EE turned loose on unsuspecting world! News at 11! "You take it seriously when someone from a ballistics research lab calls you." Heard at a Unix user's meeting discussing connectivity issues.
chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May19.194044.24840@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >That is your decision, hence your problem. Calm down, Greg. It wasn't his decision - it was the Texas PUC which decided for him. The Texas PUC has mandated all carriers offer 900 blocking to customers. If the carrier can't offer this service, then 900 calls must be blocked through the entire exchange until the service is available. A good number of Texas exchanges are currently cutoff from 900 numbers. Therefore, there are folks out there willing to pay for a call to uunet to grab stuff who can't. But that's still all beside the point - I don't think that justifies BITFTP or mail servers. -- Chip Rosenthal <chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM> | Don't play so Unicom Systems Development 512-482-8260 | loud, Mr. Collins.
merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.131422.29601@uu.psi.com> schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes: >In article <B9D525w163w@phoenix.com> stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: >> >> Based on past experience with PSI, and on the posting from them >>on this matter, I can predict with certainty what their response will >>be were I to ask them to do something like that. >> >> "Pay us more money and you can ftp it yourself." >> >>(Past experience: when PSI was hyping their telnet-able white pages, >>I asked if there was a way that UUCP sites could access it. The answer >>was "Pay us more money for a higher level account." ) >> > >I kind of doubt if anyone said that a telnet'able resource could >be available through ftp. I think we know the difference between >telnet and ftp. > >Marty >----------- another example of Mr. Stanley's lack of knowledge. -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "Clickity-Click, Barba-Trick" - The Barbapapas ]
emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.131422.29601@uu.psi.com> schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes: >(Past experience: when PSI was hyping their telnet-able white pages, >I asked if there was a way that UUCP sites could access it. The answer >was "Pay us more money for a higher level account." ) I kind of doubt if anyone said that a telnet'able resource could be available through ftp. I think we know the difference between telnet and ftp. But you could have sold your dial-up customers access to a restricted telnet shell that only connected to that one white pages service, no? They're already dialing up some kind of terminal server, this would have been one more service. Ditto access to other services available through telnet-style connections, e.g. access to archie, "knowbot" stuff, full-text search through interesting databases, etc etc. It could be done without going to all of the expense of connecting them for a full TCP/IP connection. Naturally these services are hard to provide if you're selling flat-rate access to your dialups; don't want those people sitting on the modem all day and not getting billed for it. --Ed
brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) (05/21/91)
eah@xenitec.on.ca wrote: >Oh, I can't resist this.... > >You have 900 blocking in place on your _modem_ lines?? What's to resist his kids from popping a phone into one of those jacks to call out? -- Brendan Kehoe - Widener Sun Network Manager - brendan@cs.widener.edu Widener University in Chester, PA A Bloody Sun-Dec War Zone
schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) (05/21/91)
In article <EMV.91May20162808@crane.aa.ox.com> emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti) writes: > >But you could have sold your dial-up customers access to a restricted >telnet shell that only connected to that one white pages service, no? >They're already dialing up some kind of terminal server, this would >have been one more service. Ditto access to other services available >through telnet-style connections, e.g. access to archie, "knowbot" >stuff, full-text search through interesting databases, etc etc. It >could be done without going to all of the expense of connecting them >for a full TCP/IP connection. > >Naturally these services are hard to provide if you're selling >flat-rate access to your dialups; don't want those people sitting on >the modem all day and not getting billed for it. > Actually we are just one feature away in our terminal servers from offering free WP services. What we needed was a way to bind a user account name (without a password) called "wp" directly to a Service Access Point (SAP), call it a socket. We think this will be delivered in the Summer, it was discussed in some detail in our user group in February. I don't necessarily agree with you that is hard, based on flat rate, it depends more on the scale, you know, # of queue servers, size of the queue, inter-arrival rate, etc.... Marty
jim@crom2.uucp (James P. H. Fuller) (05/21/91)
eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew happily using ksh) writes: > > > UUnet is always there. And they have 1-900 numbers. > > > > And some of us, due to children or other excuses, have to have 900 > > blocking in place. >Oh, I can't resist this.... > >You have 900 blocking in place on your _modem_ lines?? Ahhh, he read _Newsweek_ and when they said "there's no such thing as home computers, they all bought C64s and put them in the closet" he *believed*! Aren't dimwits fun? The things they say! For you guys who have peu d'imagination (note Francais, courtesy for Canadian customers) it happens that there are VERY MANY systems active on the net that borrow the household VOICE LINE to pick up the news and mail. Hey, and some of us even manage to reproduce! SOME of us even know more about the VCR than the kids do and can lock out MTV and *keep* it locked out. But it still takes money to get in an extra modem-only line. ("I can't resist this": those who don't know the above obviously don't *have* a machine in their short-forehead Neanderthal caves, I mean homes....) Crom has its own line right now (whoopee) but n'etais pas always vrai. crom2 Athens GA Public Access Unix | i486 AT, 16mb RAM, 600mb online Molecular Biology | AT&T Unix System V release 3.2 Population Biology | Tbit PEP 19200bps V.32 V.42/V.42bis Ecological Modeling | admin: James P. H. Fuller Bionet/Usenet/cnews/nn | {jim,root}%crom2@nstar.rn.com
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.180914.26084@chinacat.unicom.com> chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes: > [900 blocking] >Therefore, there are folks out there willing to pay for a call to uunet >to grab stuff who can't. Maybe not on the spur of the moment, but they can always get a subscription and the associated access through direct LD, 800 numbers, telenet, Compuserve's network, and whatever else they happen to use. >But that's still all beside the point - I don't >think that justifies BITFTP or mail servers. Why - do you think mail should only be delivered when it suits the carrier's whims? Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.064047.13740@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: >In article <1991May19.183202.5575@sceard.Sceard.COM> mrm@Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) writes: [...] >>Again, clearly a forgery. > >not a forgery. (changed my .sig as it seems to conflict with my actions >according to some of the email i've gotten.) I didn't know it wasn't a forgery:-) <-- smiley for Severly Humor-Impaired TwitS > >the "mine" in the message, was an organizational "mine", as opposed to a >personal "mine". New definition of the word "mine" :-) [...] >seems to me that the direction of the net is towards greed and ignorance. > Is it surprising that lsuc (Law Society...) would seek the administrative rather than the technical solution? :-) Much as I would like to see the facilities offered by MBAS's available, I, too, agree that the potential for abuse is such that it is not likely to find a feasable way to keep the concept in general. Too bad. If the non-Internet sites are lucky, then the major providers like uunet will react quickly to the need and come up with something reasonable. I would suggest something like the 1 hop criterion, or maybe a file at the provider similar to a paths file where an entry in the file indicates a legal path for a request. -- Mike Murphy mrm@Sceard.COM ucsd!sceard!mrm +1 619 598 5874
emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.224849.19700@uu.psi.com> schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes:
Actually we are just one feature away in our terminal servers from
offering free WP services.
Yup, beat up on the router/terminal server vendors to get this one right.
I don't necessarily agree with you that is hard, based on flat rate,
it depends more on the scale, you know, # of queue servers, size
of the queue, inter-arrival rate, etc....
Hard to disagree with you on queueing theory in an abstract sense; if
users could be modelled as having predictable arrival times, you could
figure out just where you'd run out of steam with your existing
equipment and know pretty much when to buy more. It gets slightly
complicated when the next queue server is in another state; busy
signals then mean a long distance call which can be harder to deal
with. If the local dialup is always busy, then your service is going
to be more costly than the identically priced service in a town with
open modems. Users are fickle creatures, and in any network the
size of the ones we are contemplating external events can goof up flat
rate schemes. Are you ready to handle X11R5, when all of your flat
rate customers start sitting on modems for hours on end, or will you
bump them into a higher service bracket to get it?
I guess the biggest complaint I can see with flat-rate prices is that
they are bound to be out of the price range of the light-duty user who
only wants to consume 1/2 hour a day of network time. The other
complaint is that the consumer is at the mercy of the service provider
to change the quality of service they are getting out of that
"unlimited" link by putting further limits on it. Without mentioning
any names, a flat-rate service provider has the danger of saturating
a market if their services can be effectively resold or given away to
third parties. It's inevitable that flat rates will have other
strings attached in order to keep individual user consumption of the
service down; that's a key to effective price discrimination.
--
Edward Vielmetti, MSEN Inc. emv@msen.com
BA (Economics), U of Michigan -- you never know when a course on
industrial organization will come in handy. scott@skypod.guild.org (Scott Campbell) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.033655.5269@xenitec.on.ca> eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew happily using ksh) writes: >In article <1991May19.133104.11572@balkan.TNT.COM> wgb@balkan.TNT.COM (William G. Bunton) writes: >>>UUnet is always there. And they have 1-900 numbers. >> >>And some of us, due to children or other excuses, have to have 900 >>blocking in place. > >You have 900 blocking in place on your _modem_ lines?? It would be trivial for an ingenious "child or other excuse" to unplug the modem and plug in a phone... or do you hardwire your modem to the wall? -- Scott J.M. Campbell scott@skypod.guild.org Skypod Communications Inc. ..!gatech!dscatl!daysinns!skypod!scott 1001 Bay Street, Suite 1210 ..!uunet!utai!lsuc!becker!skypod!scott Toronto, Ont. (416) 924-4059 ..!epas.utoronto.ca!nyama!skypod!scott
randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) (05/21/91)
In article <HLW+T2L@cs.widener.edu> brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes: >>You have 900 blocking in place on your _modem_ lines?? > What's to resist his kids from popping a phone into one of those >jacks to call out? > Uh, proper upbringing? -- Randy Suess randy@chinet.chi.il.us
jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May21.025032.25282@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >In article <1991May20.180914.26084@chinacat.unicom.com> chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >>But that's still all beside the point - I don't >>think that justifies BITFTP or mail servers. > >Why - do you think mail should only be delivered when it suits the >carrier's whims? why should USENET be any different than the internet. the internet is made up of a group of regional networks. each regional network sets policy as to what is acceptable use of their resources, and deals with the packets accordingly. USENET (uucpNET) is made up of a group of uucp hosts. each host should be able to set policy as to what is acceptable use of their resources. if that host's whims are that BITFTP or alt.sex.pictures is not acceptable use, they can deal with it accordingly. i think it is reasonable for the users of downstream sites to be at the mercy of upstream host policy. i think it is totally unreasnable for upstream hosts to be at the mercy of downstream user's whims. -- [ Jim Mercer jim@lsuc.On.Ca || ...!uunet!attcan!lsuc!jim +1 416 947-5258 ] [ Educational Systems Manager - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, CANADA ] [ Standards are great. They give non-conformists something to not conform to. ] [ The opinions expressed here may or may not be those of my employer ]
randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May21.002214.5493@crom2.uucp> jim@crom2.uucp (James P. H. Fuller) writes:
]>You have 900 blocking in place on your _modem_ lines??
]
] For you guys who have peu d'imagination (note Francais, courtesy for
]Canadian customers) it happens that there are VERY MANY systems active on the
]net that borrow the household VOICE LINE to pick up the news and mail. Hey,
]and some of us even manage to reproduce! SOME of us even know more about
]the VCR than the kids do and can lock out MTV and *keep* it locked out. But
]it still takes money to get in an extra modem-only line. ("I can't resist
]this": those who don't know the above obviously don't *have* a machine in their
]short-forehead Neanderthal caves, I mean homes....)
]
Scuse me, you have a system at home capable of running UNIX,
at least one VCR, cable, and you can't afford $20 per month
for a dedicated uucp fone line? Also, your kids can't be trusted
not to call 900 numbers, but they are intelligent enough not to
pick up the fone while you are uploading this drivel?
Yeah. Right.
--
Randy Suess
randy@chinet.chi.il.uslan_csse@netrix.nac.dec.com (CSSE LAN Test Account) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May18.173513.3472@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > >I'd guess that most FTP users just want the files delivered and don't >really care about the vehicle. In fact, given a choice, most people >would probably prefer uucp's automatic queuing mechanism if the remote >site can't be reached on the first attempt. Ummm...UUCP over TCP has been in existence for years; quite a lot of vendors supply it. See if your library has uucpd in it; you might also check your /etc/services or /etc/inetd.conf files for its name. If it exists on your system, it is a whole lot nicer than ftp. It retries if the call doesn't go through; it does proper error checking and doesn't hand you garbaged files; it runs easily from a script; you don't have to do it twice because you forgot to say "binary" the first time, and all those good things. Plus, when I've done timing tests, it has often run 3-4 time faster than ftp for big files. If the BSD crowd didn't have such a bad case of NIHitis, we'd all have it by now...
berk@techsys.UUCP (techsys consulting) (05/22/91)
....(text deleted....)
Peter, it seems that some demand a free ride because it's the human
way.
I'm sure that you have, somewhere, the cost of storage per hour,
and connect per hour, and can rational a cost of queing/routing.
Just tell these guys what the REAL cost to operate, on a professional
scale is. They don't care that somebody is doing NOT FAST on a boat-
load of curiosity seeked trivia. (God help the forwarder of EMACS
18.57!) I supply newsfeeds, and I'm not thrilled when stuff like
all of the BITFTP goes through ME.
Set a standard.. what MUST we po' folk do? Suggest a most painless
(on a generalized scale) viable method for equalization of the cost.
usc!celia!techsys!berk extant map entries void
Does henry@ut.zoo ever answer?thomas@mvac23.UUCP (Thomas Lapp) (05/22/91)
gsh7w@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: > Me: > #>UUnet is always there. And they have 1-900 numbers. > > William G. Bunton: > #And some of us, due to children or other excuses, have to have 900 > #blocking in place. > > That is your decision, hence your problem. And some of us have telcos who have removed 976-xxxx numbers and are thinking about doing the same for 1-900-xxx-xxxx. > UUnet also has 1-800 numbers. Don't tell me you have those blocked > also. However you have to be a member/have an account already. More inconvenient than 900 number. - tom -- internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home) : 4398613@mcimail.com (work) uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Location : Newark, DE, USA -- The UUCP Mailer
merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May21.031016.9269@sceard.Sceard.COM> mrm@Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) writes: >Is it surprising that lsuc (Law Society...) would seek the administrative >rather than the technical solution? :-) sometimes the administrative solution is better than the technical solution. Goal: reduce MBAS impact on USENET Technical: install filters at many major mail hubs Administrative: get MBAS's to straighten up their act. which is easier, faster and more effective in the long run? .... I'm not a lawyer, but i'd like to play one on TV. 8^) -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "AIDS. Stick it in your head instead!" - Billboard seen in Toronto ] [ (it lost (gained?) something in the translation from french) ]
randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May21.113455.23876@skypod.guild.org> scott@skypod.guild.org (Scott Campbell) writes: >It would be trivial for an ingenious "child or other excuse" to unplug the modem >and plug in a phone... or do you hardwire your modem to the wall? > Then you have more problems other than file transfer. Try being a parent. -- Randy Suess randy@chinet.chi.il.us
mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May22.040039.21721@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: >In article <1991May21.031016.9269@sceard.Sceard.COM> mrm@Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) writes: >>Is it surprising that lsuc (Law Society...) would seek the administrative >>rather than the technical solution? :-) > >sometimes the administrative solution is better than the technical solution. Sometimes the administrative solution is better than the poorly thought out technical solution. > >Goal: reduce MBAS impact on USENET Agreed. A noble endeavour. Really agreed. No smiley. > >Technical: install filters at many major mail hubs A technical solution. Part of an overall solution. Not the whole solution. Not the most important part of the solution. A kludge. > >Administrative: get MBAS's to straighten up their act. Close. Real close. How to straighten up the act is another question. How about having the MBAS not abuse its downstream sites unless they are masochistic enough to accept the abuse willingly. That is, have the MBAS check if the entire path for a transfer is cooperative. If it doesn't know that an element of the path is cooperative, then that element should be deemed non-cooperative, and the whole path is ng. Politely notifiy the requestor to that effect. By "check the path", I mean "check the path." As in "an address isn't good enough, you gotta check the path, and every element in the path must be explicitly cooperative." Not hard to do in software. > >which is easier, faster and more effective in the long run? > It is easier, faster, and more effective in the long run to fix a few friendly, large, well-managed MBASes than it is to try to educate, coerce, or constrain the vast morass of USENET, THISNET, THATNET, and THEOTHERNET. The administrative solution of pulling the plug is a first level solution. It is not a real good solution, but it is better than nothing. WRT MBAS abuse, can you say attractive nuisance? I knew that someone who wanted to play a lawyer on TV could :-) WRT MBAS in general, I'm pretty sure that others thought the same as I did, "What a Neat Idea (smile, smile). It can't last (smile, smile). Wow! What a mess it'll be if ever more than just a few people use it. Oops. It'll be interesting to see what happens." 50MB of VMS stuff in a 10MB spool is just another denial of service attack. In this case it is an attack by the MBAS. Inadvertant, just trying to be of service, genuinely trying to be useful and helpful, but still a denial of service attack. The administration of the MBAS might be expected to know better. To expect the user to know better is also a noble endeavour, but probably will be disappointing. Sort of like connecting two very large user communities with a 9600 baud line, telling 'em they can communicate including sending data files of humongous proportion, and then empirically observing the phenomenon of bottleneck. :-) -- Mike Murphy mrm@Sceard.COM ucsd!sceard!mrm +1 619 598 5874
randy@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush) (05/22/91)
mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) writes: > Much as I would like to see the facilities offered by MBAS's available, I, > too, agree that the potential for abuse is such that it is not likely to > find a feasable way to keep the concept in general. Too bad. There was a time in the net's life where 'potential for abuse' was not a major problem as it remained but a potential. Folk were almost proud to have dangerous tools lying around unabused (e.g. magic on WAITS). The recent abuse of MBASs makes it clear that the net has 'matured' (i.e. accumulated the immature) to the point where one can no longer leave dangerous tools available, at least not at countertop level. Recent traffic here, where the abusers claim a *right* to their lack of consideration/citizenship, makes it clear that net tool builders now must design against abuse as much as (if not more than) for use. This results in (at least) twice the effort/resource to achieve the same result. Great. In a sense, I guess, this is a sign of 'growth' and 'maturity' of the net. In another, it is sad sign of the modern human condition in self-righteous, 'you owe me', rip-off America (and the fools who follow us). <sigh> -- randy@psg.com ..!uunet!m2xenix!randy
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (05/23/91)
>The recent abuse of MBASs makes it clear that the net has 'matured' (i.e. >accumulated the immature) to the point where one can no longer leave dangerous >tools available, at least not at countertop level. > >Recent traffic here, where the abusers claim a *right* to their lack of >consideration/citizenship, makes it clear that net tool builders now must >design against abuse as much as (if not more than) for use. Lamentably, this is true. I've started seeing users who seem to believe that the law of computer usage is "if you can do it, you're allowed." Or, more accurately, if there is no rule stating explicitly that they cannot do such-and-such a thing, then they must be allowed to do it. If they can get at a command that will shut down the system, then they are allowed to do it. If they can fake mail from other users, then they must be allowed to do so. A sad state... --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Think, think, think, think..." - Winnie-the-Pooh, Taoist Bear.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.040039.21721@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: > Goal: reduce MBAS impact on USENET Goal: reduce the traffic of sources through electronic mail routes. > Technical: install filters at many major mail hubs Alternatively, provide an alternative to mailing of sources. > Administrative: get MBAS's to straighten up their act. How does this help with the "could you mail me a copy of..." people? > which is easier, faster and more effective in the long run? UUCP access to FTP. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/23/91)
In article <DJuB31w164w@techsys.UUCP> berk@techsys.UUCP (techsys consulting) writes: >usc!celia!techsys!berk extant map entries void > Does henry@ut.zoo ever answer? Yeah, he does... but he gets, and replies to, a lot of mail, so when his answer bounces from some difficult mailer en route, he tends to just say "oh, to hell with it" and go on to something else, unless there's some reason why it's important to *him* that the mail get through. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) (05/23/91)
According to jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer):
>USENET (uucpNET) is made up of a group of uucp hosts.
Sorry, but that's incorrect. To quote from "What Is Usenet?"...
7. Usenet is not the Internet.
The Internet is a wide-ranging network, parts of which are
subsidized by various governments. The Internet carries many
kinds of traffic; Usenet is only one of them. And the Internet is
only one of the various networks carrying Usenet traffic.
8. Usenet is not a UUCP network.
UUCP is a protocol (some might say "protocol suite," but that's a
technical point) for sending data over point-to-point connections,
typically using dialup modems. Usenet is only one of the various
kinds of traffic carried via UUCP, and UUCP is only one of the
various transports carrying Usenet traffic.
9. Usenet is not a UNIX network, nor even an ASCII network.
Don't assume that everyone is using "rn" on a UNIX machine. There
are Vaxen running VMS, IBM mainframes, Amigas, and MS-DOS PCs
reading and posting to Usenet. And, yes, some of them use
(shudder) EBCDIC. Ignore them if you like, but they're out there.
If you want to be understood, get your terminology straight.
--
Brand X Industries Custodial, Refurbishing and Containment Service:
When You Never, Ever Want To See It Again [tm]
Chip Salzenberg <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May22.180529.21358@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: > I've started seeing users who seem to believe that ... if there is no rule > stating explicitly that they cannot do such-and-such a thing, then they must > be allowed to do it. Users, hell! It's a general ethical problem in modern society... many people see no limits other than the law. They believe that if something is legal, there is no reason why anyone should be upset if they do it. Common sense, enlightened self interest, and so on don't mean anything to these people. It's not necessarily a new problem... what is new is the acceptance of this viewpoint. The idea that (for example) unless it can be shown that a member of the legislature actually broke a law there is no reason he should suffer for his action. The corresponding problem is that if something is illegal, people assume it must therefore be wrong. They forget that laws are made by people, and usually made after the fact. > A sad state... indeed. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
dan@gacvx2.gac.edu (05/24/91)
In article <1991May22.180529.21358@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: > Lamentably, this is true. > > I've started seeing users who seem to believe that the law of computer usage is > "if you can do it, you're allowed." Or, more accurately, if there is no rule > stating explicitly that they cannot do such-and-such a thing, then they must be > allowed to do it. If they can get at a command that will shut down the system, > then they are allowed to do it. If they can fake mail from other users, then > they must be allowed to do so. > > A sad state... I have found that one or two of the "lets strech the rules until they break" types seem like they are more people, sometimes it seems like the abusive behavior is being done by "all the users." They get into so much trouble and take up so much of an administrators time that they just can't be one person. The most painfull one here finally was suspended for failure to maintain a satisfactory GPA. I was allowed to remove his account. I now have time to answer the questions of real users. He never caused a big problem, just near constant irritation. The other users were glad to get the 50mb he was using up filled with GIF files back too. Its not just student, I have had faculty that are worse. Ever have to share the administration of a UNIX machine with someone who pops into "su" every time he uses the machine, just because? Nough complaining. I wouldn't give any of it up, but I am happy to take it away from the ones who can't handle it. -- Dan Boehlke Internet: dan@gac.edu Campus Network Manager BITNET: dan@gacvax1.bitnet Gustavus Adolphus College St. Peter, MN 56082 USA Phone: (507)933-7596
merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May22.141737.26521@sceard.Sceard.COM> mrm@Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) writes: >50MB of VMS stuff in a 10MB spool is just another denial of service attack. >In this case it is an attack by the MBAS. Inadvertant, just trying to be >of service, genuinely trying to be useful and helpful, but still a denial of >service attack. The administration of the MBAS might be expected to know >better. To expect the user to know better is also a noble endeavour, but >probably will be disappointing. when we got hit with the VMS stuff, we investigated and found that it was user ignorance. "i didn't know it was going to be that big." MBAS was explained to him, and when we finished, i feel he had more that enough information so that he would not do it again. 6 weeks later, same user, getting some VMS uucp suite. he tells me that if our system can't handle the load, we should get out of the hub business. now, was this attack from the MBAS or the user? -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "AIDS. Stick it in your head instead!" - Billboard seen in Toronto ] [ (it lost (gained?) something in the translation from french) ]
blarson@blars (05/24/91)
In article <1991May18.172953.3331@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >And what's the alternative that lets me get a current directory listing >from an ftp site that has offered to make something available? Uunet >has someone that handles ftp requests, but I would feel uncomfortable >asking a person to check a remote directory on a weekly basis. It didn't >bother me at all to make such requests through bitftp. You are bothered to use a service you pay for? (If uunet loses money doing this, they can always add a surcharge.) Getting a remote directory on a weekly basis sounds like a job for cron, not a human. Tell uunet that you want it every week, and let them worry about if they prefer to do in manually or automaticly. -- blarson@usc.edu C news and rn for os9/68k! -- Bob Larson (blars) blarson@usc.edu usc!blarson Hiding differences does not make them go away. Accepting differences makes them unimportant.
scott@skypod.guild.org (Scott Campbell) (05/25/91)
In article <1991May22.141737.26521@sceard.Sceard.COM> mrm@Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) writes: >In article <1991May22.040039.21721@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: >>Goal: reduce MBAS impact on USENET >>Administrative: get MBAS's to straighten up their act. >Close. Real close. How to straighten up the act is another question. >How about having the MBAS not abuse its downstream sites unless they are >masochistic enough to accept the abuse willingly. That is, have the MBAS >check if the entire path for a transfer is cooperative. If it doesn't >know that an element of the path is cooperative, then that element should >be deemed non-cooperative, and the whole path is ng. Politely notifiy the >requestor to that effect. By "check the path", I mean "check the path." >As in "an address isn't good enough, you gotta check the path, and >every element in the path must be explicitly cooperative." Not hard to >do in software. What about a new line in everyone's map entry stating whether they will forward MBAS mail? Or perhaps a line which states the maximum number of Megs that a particular site is willing to accept? (0 would mean don't send MBAS stuff through me at all). Then MBAS's could go through the path to a user and if all the sites along the path explicitly allowed MBAS files, then it would be ok to send, otherwise - NIX. This would mean that MBAS's would have to start getting the map files (which they probably don't have, being on the internet). Anyone that REALLY wants to get MBAS mail can update their map entry and convince sites upstream to do so also. Anyone who doesn't want MBAS traffic can simply do nothing. scott -- Scott J.M. Campbell scott@skypod.guild.org Skypod Communications Inc. ..!gatech!dscatl!daysinns!skypod!scott 1001 Bay Street, Suite 1210 ..!uunet!utai!lsuc!becker!skypod!scott Toronto, Ont. (416) 924-4059 ..!epas.utoronto.ca!nyama!skypod!scott
glenn@gla-aux.uucp (Glenn Austin) (05/25/91)
In article <1991May19.214916.27412@chinet.chi.il.us>, randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) writes: > In article <1991May19.133104.11572@balkan.TNT.COM> wgb@balkan.TNT.COM (William G. Bunton) writes: > >And some of us, due to children or other excuses, have to have 900 > >blocking in place. > > On your uucp line? Common, be real. Yes. On our uucp line. Some of us live in locations where multiple phone lines can be prohibitively expensive (a friend would have had to pay $400 for installation PLUS $125 PER MONTH PLUS any long distance charges), or there are simply not enough lines available in the neighborhood (because everybody else has multiple lines). I'm lucky now, I have a second line, but I STILL don't permit dialup access -- my mail & news server also acts as a development machine, and I have too much time and money invested in it to have every cracker in a 50 mile radius attempting to break into my machine. =============================================================================== | Glenn L. Austin | "Turn too soon, run out of room. | | Macintosh Wizard and | Turn too late, much better fate." | | Auto Racing Driver | -- Jim Russell Racing School Instructors | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Usenet: glenn@gla-aux.uucp | CI$: 76354,1434 | | GENie: G.AUSTIN3 | AOnline: GAustin | ===============================================================================
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (05/28/91)
In article <1991May22.040039.21721@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: >Goal: reduce MBAS impact on USENET While we're at it, let's reduce the impact of 'sendsys' messages on mailing lists! What's that you say? News is different from mail? Indeed.
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (05/30/91)
The way to make all of this academic would be for a fair geographic distribution
of internet sites to make some kind of logins publicly available (I think Peter
daSilva suggested this already). I have no idea about workability, and
absolutely no hope that it will happen, but I'd gladly pay $50 a year for
access to a system with a couple of lines, nothing but the ftp suite enabled
(well, enough more so I could send stuff on to my machine) and all files
deleted 10 minutes after logoff (the delay to allow for logoffs by line hits).
The advantage over uucp archives is the ability to browse. It would probably
take at least 4 such sites to make it remotely practical. The whole idea is
generally along the lines of uunet's 900 number, but more focussed in purpose,
and in more locations.
I'm not shy about paying my own phone bills. But many of the packages I'd like
to check out are archived in places that don't give me that option.
Steve saj@chinet.chi.il.usherrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (06/02/91)
In article <1991May22.114409.28815@chinet.chi.il.us>, randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess) writes: > In article <1991May21.113455.23876@skypod.guild.org> scott@skypod.guild.org (Scott Campbell) writes: >>It would be trivial for an ingenious "child or other excuse" to unplug the modem >>and plug in a phone... or do you hardwire your modem to the wall? >> > > Then you have more problems other than file transfer. Try being > a parent. That is what the author of "child or other excuse" was saying when he said he had 900 blocking. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
tim@qed.tcc.com (Tim Capps) (06/02/91)
jim@crom2.uucp (James P. H. Fuller) writes: > Can you say "0% reliability?" FTP to uucp-only sites doesn't work > AT ALL. What's your advice for them? "Screw you, Jack, I've got mine?" > Harrumph! > Jim > Hear, hear! I for one am really tired of seeing "oh, you can just get this via anonymous FTP". Pah. There is nothing more annoying than finding all about what you CAN'T get. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Capps | tim@qed.tcc.com | Give The QED BBS a call! New QED Software | The QED BBS (213)420-9327 | phone number - V.32 & PEP etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
randy@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush) (06/03/91)
tim@qed.tcc.com (Tim Capps) writes: > Hear, hear! I for one am really tired of seeing "oh, you can just get > this via anonymous FTP". Pah. There is nothing more annoying than > finding all about what you CAN'T get. There's nothing more annoying than all those ads that show beautiful beaches ..., and say how lovely it is vacationing in Hawaii. Since I would have to pay to go there, such ads should be forbidden. qed indeed. -- randy@psg.com ..!uunet!m2xenix!randy
jeh@cmkrnl.uucp (06/03/91)
In article <VJmw32w164w@qed.tcc.com>, tim@qed.tcc.com (Tim Capps) writes: > jim@crom2.uucp (James P. H. Fuller) writes: > >> Can you say "0% reliability?" FTP to uucp-only sites doesn't work >> AT ALL. What's your advice for them? "Screw you, Jack, I've got mine?" >> Harrumph! >> Jim >> > Hear, hear! I for one am really tired of seeing "oh, you can just get > this via anonymous FTP". Pah. There is nothing more annoying than > finding all about what you CAN'T get. Of course you can get it. All you need to do is to do exactly what all the existing Internet sites have done: Pay for some form of tcp/ip link to the Internet. It may be that your budget does not allow for this. (Mine doesn't.) Fine, you can sign up with uunet, but use them ONLY for uucp'ing stuff that you ask them to grab for you via ftp. The cost for this is not all that high. Oh, you wanted to get at that stuff for free! Well... perhaps you wil feel better if you realize that THE PEOPLE WITH REAL INTERNET LINKS ARE NOT GETTING IT FOR FREE EITHER. They pay big bucks for their leased lines, 56K or T1 modems, router boxes, etc., etc., not to mention competent technical people to keep the stuff running. And when they got on the Internet they never signed anything that said "we agree to free and unlimited use of these facilities by uucp sites who want access to worldwide anon ftp archives for the cost of a local phone call". You get what you pay for. There are mechanisms by which a uucp-only site can access anon ftp archives, for a fair price that covers their hosts' costs of Internet access. All that has happened with the demise of bitftp, is that there are now fewer mechanisms by which a uucp-only site can access such archives while others (sometimes unknowingly) foot the bill for their fun. I don't see this as a major tragedy. --- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA Chair, VMS Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG Internet: jeh@dcs.simpact.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!cmkrnl!jeh
lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) (06/04/91)
tim@qed.tcc.com (Tim Capps) writes: >Hear, hear! I for one am really tired of seeing "oh, you can just get >this via anonymous FTP". Pah. There is nothing more annoying than >finding all about what you CAN'T get. Well then, stop pissing and moaning and get yourself an Internet connection. -- Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University atha!cs.athabascau.ca!lyndon || lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca Packet: ve6bbm@ve6mc.ab.can.noam As a math atheist, I should be excused from this. --Calvin
stevef@bony1.bony.com (Steve Faiwiszewski) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun2.151614.65@cmkrnl.uucp> jeh@cmkrnl.uucp writes: > >Of course you can get it. All you need to do is to do exactly what all the >existing Internet sites have done: Pay for some form of tcp/ip link to the >Internet. > >It may be that your budget does not allow for this. (Mine doesn't.) Fine, >you can sign up with uunet, but use them ONLY for uucp'ing stuff that you ask >them to grab for you via ftp. The cost for this is not all that high. > > --- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA >Chair, VMS Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG >Internet: jeh@dcs.simpact.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com >Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!cmkrnl!jeh There is another aspect to the issue. The bank I work for can certainly afford to pay for a tcp/ip link. However, for security (read paranoid) reasons, management will never go for it. Hell, it took us months to convince management to allow us to have a uucp based mail/news feed from Uunet. Now, since we *PAY* for connection to uunet, and we *DONT* go thru anyone else's system, there would be no harm for us calling upon the services of an MBAS. Without one, we are restricted to what we can get directly from uunet, which is (naturally) far from having a complete archive. Would be nice if uunet implemented an MBAS like thing for its customers... - Steve - -- ======================================================================= Internet: stevef@bony1.bony.COM | The Bank Of New York | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ bang : uunet!bony1!stevef | Reality is Nobody's Dream
merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun4.151838.7885@bony1.bony.com> stevef@bony1.bony.com (Steve Faiwiszewski) writes: >Now, since we *PAY* for connection to uunet, and we *DONT* go thru >anyone else's system, there would be no harm for us calling upon the >services of an MBAS. Without one, we are restricted to what we can >get directly from uunet, which is (naturally) far from having a >complete archive. unless the MBAS is located on uunet AND uunet has direct links to all the systems it will auto-snarf files from, you can not say that you "*DONT* go thru anyone else's system". the internet is made up of many autonomous hosts and regional segments which have different priorities and policies. since you pay uunet, and not the internet as a whole, you are limited to uunet and anything beyond that is a gift. MBAS providers and members of the internet are under no contract to supply you with anything. they can extend and withdraw their services as they wish. >Would be nice if uunet implemented an MBAS like >thing for its customers... yes, it would. -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "AIDS. Stick it in your head instead!" - Billboard seen in Toronto ] [ (it lost (gained?) something in the translation from french) ]
dc@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Daniel Cohen;E303) (06/05/91)
In <1991Jun4.151838.7885@bony1.bony.com> stevef@bony1.bony.com (Steve Faiwiszewski) writes: >Now, since we *PAY* for connection to uunet, and we *DONT* go thru >anyone else's system, there would be no harm for us calling upon the >services of an MBAS. Without one, we are restricted to what we can >get directly from uunet, which is (naturally) far from having a >complete archive. Would be nice if uunet implemented an MBAS like >thing for its customers... When I was a customer of uunet, they were prepared to fetch files by anonymous ftp for me, and then mail it to me for collection with the regular delivery. I know it's not as convenient as being able to ftp things yourself but it does mean you're not limited to what you can get directly from uunet. I imagine they still provide this service to customers; ask them. -- Daniel Cohen Department of Computer Science Email: dc@dcs.qmw.ac.uk Queen Mary and Westfield College Tel: +44 71 975 5249/4/5 Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK Fax: +44 81 980 6533 *** Glory, Glory, Hallelujah ***
witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun5.021549.28810@iguana.uucp>, merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: |In article <1991Jun4.151838.7885@bony1.bony.com> stevef@bony1.bony.com (Steve Faiwiszewski) writes: |>Now, since we *PAY* for connection to uunet...there would be no harm for |>us calling upon the services of an MBAS. |unless the MBAS is located on uunet AND uunet has direct links to all the |systems it will auto-snarf files from, you can not say that you "*DONT* go |thru anyone else's system".... since you pay uunet, and not the internet as |a whole, you are limited to uunet and anything beyond that is a gift. MBAS |providers and members of the internet are under no contract to supply you |with anything. This strikes me as a pointless (albeit true) remark, because the same can be said about any kind of direct internet access. And no one in this thread has complained about the costs ``to-the-net'' of anonymous FTP. I do not believe that a MBAS (when used as described above) increases the costs to any arbitrary internet node beyond that which results from direct internet access. It may in fact *lower* the costs; it can enforce copying-time restrictions thus decrease the load on the net. Stated another way, using a MBAS that mails the FTPd stuff *only* to directly connected sites is no more costly to the net than using anonymous FTP. Since the ``net-at-large'' seems willing to support the costs of anonymous FTP, I don't see how the ``net-at-large'' can object to such a MBAS service. BTW, UUNET *does* have a MBAS: You send them mail and ask them to FTP something. It works, but, from my experience, slowly and unreliably. -- --- Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott MA 01907 USA Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
tim@qed.tcc.com (Tim Capps) (06/06/91)
jeh@cmkrnl.uucp writes: > In article <VJmw32w164w@qed.tcc.com>, tim@qed.tcc.com (Tim Capps) writes: > > Hear, hear! I for one am really tired of seeing "oh, you can just get > > this via anonymous FTP". Pah. There is nothing more annoying than > > finding all about what you CAN'T get. > > Of course you can get it. All you need to do is to do exactly what all the > existing Internet sites have done: Pay for some form of tcp/ip link to the > Internet. > > It may be that your budget does not allow for this. (Mine doesn't.) Fine, > you can sign up with uunet, but use them ONLY for uucp'ing stuff that you ask > them to grab for you via ftp. The cost for this is not all that high. Hey, a constructive response! Now, that's a novel thing these days! Now, that's a good idea. I hadn't thought of that. Maybe I'll do that. The only alternative I had come up with is PSI. They charge $120/mo flat fee, which is far too much, considering the amount of FTP I'd actually do (once in a blue moon). Besides, (and I know this is probably flame bait, but what the heck) based on what I have heard about the facsist contracts PSI wants you to sign, you can count me out with that company. > Oh, you wanted to get at that stuff for free! Well... perhaps you wil feel > better if you realize that THE PEOPLE WITH REAL INTERNET LINKS ARE NOT GETTIN > IT FOR FREE EITHER. They pay big bucks for their leased lines, 56K or T1 > modems, router boxes, etc., etc., not to mention competent technical people t > keep the stuff running. No, I didn't ever say that. > And when they got on the Internet they never signed anything that said "we > agree to free and unlimited use of these facilities by uucp sites who want > access to worldwide anon ftp archives for the cost of a local phone call". > > You get what you pay for. There are mechanisms by which a uucp-only site can > access anon ftp archives, for a fair price that covers their hosts' costs of > Internet access. Like I said, I never said that. Take a few deep breaths please, I got the point already. > All that has happened with the demise of bitftp, is that there are now fewer > mechanisms by which a uucp-only site can access such archives while others > (sometimes unknowingly) foot the bill for their fun. > > I don't see this as a major tragedy. Me neither. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Capps | tim@qed.tcc.com | Give The QED BBS a call! New QED Software | The QED BBS (213)420-9327 | phone number - V.32 & PEP etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
tim@qed.tcc.com (Tim Capps) (06/08/91)
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: > > <asbestos underwear on> > > jbuck@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Buck) writes: > > >No, the answer for UUCP-only sites who can't anonymous FTP is to anonymous > >UUCP. There are a number of sites that provide this service; osu-cis, > >uunet (in addition to providing the service for regular customers, they > >have a 900 number so anyone can use the service). > > The problem here is that many UUCP-only sites are looking for a free ride. > > <asbestos underwear off> Uh-Huh. I'll bet you don't PERSONALLY pay for your access, now do you? I'll bet the company pays for it. If that's the case, then who is getting the free ride? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Capps | tim@qed.tcc.com | Give The QED BBS a call! New QED Software | The QED BBS (213)420-9327 | phone number - V.32 & PEP etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jeh@cmkrnl.uucp (06/08/91)
In article <qwm435w164w@qed.tcc.com>, tim@qed.tcc.com (Tim Capps) writes: >jeh@cmkrnl.uucp writes: >> [...] >> Oh, you wanted to get at that stuff for free! [...] > >No, I didn't ever say that. Sorry, though I happened to be doing a followup to your post, that was a generic "you", referring to whoever is out there who DOES want to get it for free, or for a local phone call only. --- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA Chair, VMS Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG Internet: jeh@dcs.simpact.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!cmkrnl!jeh
merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (06/09/91)
In article <aX6732w164w@qed.tcc.com> tim@qed.tcc.com (Tim Capps) writes: >mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >> >No, the answer for UUCP-only sites who can't anonymous FTP is to anonymous >> >UUCP. There are a number of sites that provide this service; osu-cis, >> >uunet (in addition to providing the service for regular customers, they >> >have a 900 number so anyone can use the service). >> >> The problem here is that many UUCP-only sites are looking for a free ride. > >Uh-Huh. I'll bet you don't PERSONALLY pay for your access, now do you? >I'll bet the company pays for it. If that's the case, then who is getting >the free ride? he's not getting a free ride, if his company is paying for it. at least it is being paid for by someone directly related to him. if your company won't pay for your file transfers, don't expect mine to. -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "AIDS. Stick it in your head instead!" - Billboard seen in Toronto ] [ (it lost (gained?) something in the translation from french) ]