tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) (07/07/89)
In article <Jul.5.22.50.51.1989.20540@rutgers.rutgers.edu>, uucpmap@rutgers.rutgers.edu (UUCP Mapping Project) writes:
) ... [about being sharchive] ...
) # This information is copyright (c) 1989 by EUUG and may not be used
) # without a specific written autorization [sic].
) [ 158 more lines, followed by two larger articles including the
) same copyright notice and NO PERMISSION to use... ]
I'd like to publicly thank the EUUG (and the French in particular)
for posting ~50K of map data, all of it clearly marked against usage.
It would seem to be more helpful if people posting map data would
either not copyright it. If someone insists on copyrighting his
map data (why? e-mail & I'll post summary if any) they should at
least give some sort of permission to use the data.
As it is, the only thing I can do with three froggish map files
totalling approx 50K is to remove them. I most particularly may
not legally use the data when I compile the maps using "pathalias".
Postmasters with automatic map-unpacking software: are you paying
attention to what is being done, or are you violating this copyright?
--
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!ki4pv!tanner
or... {allegra killer gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tannerwisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) (07/07/89)
>Postmasters with automatic map-unpacking software: are you paying >attention to what is being done, or are you violating this copyright? Oh, brazenly violating it, I assure you. Failing entirely, in fact, to take the copyright notice seriously. Bill Wisner wisner@mica.berkeley.edu ucbvax!mica!wisner I'm not the NRA either.
tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) (07/14/89)
It has been pointed out via e-mail tha EUUG actively sues people who
turn the map entries into mailing lists, and that the copyright
supports this activity.
No written "autorization" has been received allowing me to use the
maps for their intended purpose, however. I do acknowledge receipt
of notice that at least one postmaster blatantly violates the
copyright.
Since the maps for France may not legally be used, it seems that it
would be better not to post them at all. Can anyone justify posting
the maps for France each month?
--
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!ki4pv!tanner
or... {allegra killer gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tannerphilip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) (07/17/89)
In article <7106@ki4pv.uucp>, tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes: > It has been pointed out via e-mail tha EUUG actively sues people who > turn the map entries into mailing lists, and that the copyright > supports this activity. > > No written "autorization" has been received allowing me to use the > maps for their intended purpose, however. I do acknowledge receipt > of notice that at least one postmaster blatantly violates the > copyright. Did you ask ? I don't suppose that you really think that somone is going to 'phone every site in the world to ask if they want permission do you ? Just send mail to postmaster@France.EU.net and ask if you want permission. Philip
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (07/18/89)
I wasn't going to say anything, but someone actually had the nerve to support such a stupid thing. In article <1989Jul17.085440.9421@coms.axis.fr> philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes: >In article <7106@ki4pv.uucp>, tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes: >> It has been pointed out via e-mail tha EUUG actively sues people who >> turn the map entries into mailing lists, and that the copyright >> supports this activity. >> No written "autorization" has been received allowing me to use the >> maps for their intended purpose, however. I do acknowledge receipt >> of notice that at least one postmaster blatantly violates the >> copyright. Well, my unpacker doesn't look for copyright notices. I guess I'm blatantly ignoring it too. If you post something to comp.mail.maps, there is an implicit understanding that they will be used, regardless of copyright. >Did you ask ? >I don't suppose that you really think that somone is going to 'phone >every site in the world to ask if they want permission do you ? >Just send mail to postmaster@France.EU.net and ask if you want permission. It's totally stupid to post articles like maps that are labeled with an explicit prohibition against their use. You're asking that EVERY SITE IN THE WORLD send mail to postmaster@France.EU.net to politely ask permission to use the maps. And I'm not gonna. If they're trying to prohibit the use of these maps for mailing lists, then the restriction should say so - what could be simpler. As it stands now, postmaster@France.EU.net is wasting quite a bit of other site's money transmitting something that noone's allowed to use. Unless this practice (prohibition of use) is stopped, I suggest that the people responsible for the posting of the maps refuse to post maps containing such absurd restrictions. (This is being CC:'d to postmaster@France.EU.net, and mel@rutgers) -- Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada {uunet!attcan,utgpu,yunexus,utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis Ferret Mailing list: ...!lsuc!eci386!ferret-request
ingoldsb@ctycal.COM (Terry Ingoldsby) (07/19/89)
In article <7106@ki4pv.uucp>, tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes: > It has been pointed out via e-mail tha EUUG actively sues people who > turn the map entries into mailing lists, and that the copyright > supports this activity. Usenet functions on the free passage of information. My feeling is that people/groups not agreeing with this philosophy don't have the right to participate in the benefits of the net. I do understand that the users in France probably aren't any happier with the copyright than we (news administrators) are. Nonetheless, I don't have time to go through 5 Mbytes/day looking for copyright notices. Much easier for me just to fire all postings from sites known to use copyrights to the bit bucket. Sorry for the tough stance, but this sort of thing should be nipped in the bud! -- Terry Ingoldsby ctycal!ingoldsb@calgary.UUCP Land Information Systems or The City of Calgary ...{alberta,ubc-cs,utai}!calgary!ctycal!ingoldsb
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (07/19/89)
[This has been quoted some many times, I'm not sure who originally said this:] > It has been pointed out via e-mail tha[t] EUUG actively sues people who > turn the map entries into mailing lists, and that the copyright supports > this activity. First off, I'm not sure how to parse that. What activity does the copyright support? The turning of the map entries into mailing lists or the bringing of lawsuits? I'm certainly not expert on the legalities of copyright, but it seems to me that putting a copyright notice in a map entry is a dubious thing. Map entries are intended to be machine parsed. Presumably that means the copyright notices are put in as comments, which the various map parsing software will simply ignore. Somebody could write a script to turn the map entries into mailing lists and never even know that there *was* a copyright notice. This hardly seems useful, nor fair. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network"
philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) (07/19/89)
In article <254@ecicrl.UUCP>, clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > > It's totally stupid to post articles like maps that are labeled with > an explicit prohibition against their use. You're asking that EVERY SITE IN > THE WORLD send mail to postmaster@France.EU.net to politely ask > permission to use the maps. And I'm not gonna. Wrong, wrong, wrong! This is just an example of refusing to understand how things *SHOULD* be done - all you Americans have got it wrong! :-) ^^ - Please note ! This is for the benefit of those who have been saying that "you europeans have it all wrong" recently. Not every site in the world uses these maps, nor do they need to. In europe there are a handful of sites who use the maps. I like your refusal to obey copyright notices - does your employer know that you have such tendancies ? I hope we can all look forward to your posting the entire sources of System 5.3 soon - because this is only protected by copyright, and I don't suppose that you agree with that either ? Or could it be that you think yourself safe to refuse to obey copyright laws in this case - whereas you know darn well what AT&T would do to you in the case of their copyrighted material ? This stupid, childish 'and I'm not gonna !' (sound of stamping feet) doesn't help anyone. [Turn down the burner a bit ...] Now, on to more constructive things. As you probably are aware, the copyright notice was put there to prevent abuse of the information contained in these map entries. In the past, people have tried to use them as the basis of junk mailing (paper mail) lists. All map maintainers would be well advised to protect their 'clients' from this abuse. There is no problem with using the maps for the purpose for which they were intended - no one will jump on you for that. BUT - just try making a mailing list out of it .... The next version of the maps should contain a modified copyright notice giving explicit permission to use for e-mail routing. Philip
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (07/19/89)
Copyrights on the UUCP maps is a damn foolish idea. Perhaps the next BBN map entry will have a copyright that will only allow use if you promise not to re-route my mail? /r$ -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out.
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (07/20/89)
In article <1989Jul19.120102.19751@coms.axis.fr> philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes: >In the past, people have tried to use them as the basis of junk mailing >(paper mail) lists. > >All map maintainers would be well advised to protect their 'clients' >from this abuse. > >There is no problem with using the maps for the purpose for which they >were intended - no one will jump on you for that. > >BUT - just try making a mailing list out of it .... There was discussion about this very subject about a year ago on the net. Overall consensus was that people didn't mind the (paper) mail as it was the sort: ``We (obviously) got your name by grepping the maps for Sun owners. Wanna buy a memory board for a Sun ? Cheap?'' I mean, I assume everibody in France doesn't this (junk) mail ? Disclaimer: I own a multi-billion dollar mega-corperation that gets all it's profit by sending junk (paper) mail to France. -- He's T*d, Jim. richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
wcs) (07/20/89)
In article <1989Jul19.120102.19751@coms.axis.fr> philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes:
]This is just an example of refusing to understand how things *SHOULD*
]be done - all you Americans have got it wrong! :-)
A typical example of stubborn French conceit :-)
We should never have let DeGaulle run France.
]Not every site in the world uses these maps, nor do they need to.
]In europe there are a handful of sites who use the maps.
First of all, a large number of sites in the US use
pathalias to generate email routing information, and the
rest either forward their mail through a site that does or
use Usenet Path: lines for replies (a disreputable practice!).
Intelligent mailers make the maps useful for everyone.
]I like your refusal to obey copyright notices - does your employer
]know that you have such tendancies ?
]I hope we can all look forward to your posting the entire sources of
]System 5.3 soon - because this is only protected by copyright, and I
]don't suppose that you agree with that either ?
First of all, the primary protection on AT&T UNIX software
is not copyright, it's contract law - you can only get a
copy if you sign a contract that says you won't give it to
unauthorized people, and our crew of big nasty ugly lawyers
will bust you for violating your contract if you do.
The US government has recently signed the Berne copyright
agreement, which says that we agree to protect copyright of
other signers to the agreement, and apparently says that
anything is copyrighted, even without explicit copyright
notice, unless the author renounces copyright.
The problem is that, in the past, the maps have not been
copyrighted, and it never occurred to anyone that they would be
- the network is a cooperative activity. The primary
readers of the maps have been software rather than humans,
and it never occurred to most of us to make our software
check for copyrights - who would publish a map and then say
you can't use it for the purpose one uses maps for?
]The next version of the maps should contain a modified copyright notice
]giving explicit permission to use for e-mail routing.
--
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs
# also cloned at 201-271-4712 tarpon.att.com!wcs
# ... counting stars by candle light ....peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/21/89)
In article <1989Jul19.120102.19751@coms.axis.fr>, philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes: [ a bunch of flames omitted ] > In the past, people have tried to use them as the basis of junk mailing > (paper mail) lists. So have the Usenet maps. In fact they still are used that way. I receive several 'free' magazines and quite a bit of junk mail because I'm in the maps. There was some discussion when this started happening, but by and large people over here don't care. Anyway, here's why people are flaming you... > There is no problem with using the maps for the purpose for which they > were intended - no one will jump on you for that. You say that, BUT your copyright notice doesn't say that. And given the way lawyers work, people can't risk breaking your notice... AS IT STANDS. > The next version of the maps should contain a modified copyright notice > giving explicit permission to use for e-mail routing. Better late than never. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "A char, a short int, and Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | an int bit-field were walking Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | through the forest..."
tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) (07/21/89)
In article <1989Jul17.085440.9421@coms.axis.fr>, philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes: ) In article <7106@ki4pv.uucp>, tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes: ) > No written "autorization" has been received allowing me to use the ) > maps for their intended purpose, however. ) Did you ask ? Goodness, no, I didn't ask. I can't very well get mail through to france if I can't use the maps, can I? ) I don't suppose that you really think that somone is going to 'phone ) every site in the world to ask if they want permission do you ? Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I further expect them to make a fair attempt to speak English or Chinese when they do it! Down to reality: there are over a hundred map files which go into building a paths file. The ones from France require that I get permission for any use. The rest of them do not. Problem 0: Do you seriously think that each postmaster should write to a hundred other postmasters for written permission to use the posted maps? (Categorical Imperative) If not, what makes the French maps special, that permission should be sought for them? Why should the same logic not apply to the maps from New Jersey? Problem 1: What if people take you seriously? Everyone writes to france for "autorization". France sinks under the sheer weight of the mail, and the heirs and assigns go broke mailing back written permissions. Electronic permissions, of course, won't hold up. Problem 2: If permission is not automatic, then why have the french maps been sent to my systems? If I may be denied permission to use the data, then why should we pay to receive them in the first place? Why not just leave the data in France, where they will be admired and properly respected, and not subjected to the abuse heaped upon them by ugly and cynical U.S. postmasters? -- ...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!ki4pv!tanner or... {allegra attctc gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner
lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) (07/21/89)
In article <1989Jul19.120102.19751@coms.axis.fr> philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes: >There is no problem with using the maps for the purpose for which they >were intended - no one will jump on you for that. Oh yes there is! The copyright *explicitly* *forbids* ANY use of the map data unless written permission is obtained. You argue that nobody should ignore AT&T's copyright on UNIX, and then go on to say that we should also ignore the map copyright, but only in situations that you approve of. This is patently absurd. To comply with your copyright, I have made a modification to our map processing scripts. They no longer process any of the maps for France during pathalias runs. I would have emailed this reply, however my mailer doesn't seem to be able to route to your site ... -- Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University {alberta,decwrl,ncc}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA If everyone quit smoking, drinking, and buying gas, the nation would probably go bankrupt.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (07/22/89)
I've never gotten any junk mail because of the UUCP maps. Has there been a lot of it? I can't imagine why people are upset about the fact that something they put out in public to thousands of machines has found its way into mailing lists. To my mind, you should be more upset about how non-public information, like conferences you attend and magazines you subscribe to, is *sold* into mailing lists by the very people entrusted with the information. Anyway, just write the direct mail marketing association, and they will take you off all mailing lists used by association members, which is most junk mail. Besides, what is the fuss. You don't want people to reach you via the mail at their own expense. You want them to run ads on the net at other people's expense? Those who oppose any commercial activity *on* the net should welcome the idea of a mailing list from the net maps with open arms. (As long as it is not used badly to send material with no correlation to net use.) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) (07/22/89)
In article <2444@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>, wcs@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs) writes: > In article <1989Jul19.120102.19751@coms.axis.fr> philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes: > ]This is just an example of refusing to understand how things *SHOULD* > ]be done - all you Americans have got it wrong! :-) > A typical example of stubborn French conceit :-) > We should never have let DeGaulle run France. Yeah. Actually, I'm British, maybe I have been living here too long ... > ]Not every site in the world uses these maps, nor do they need to. > ]In europe there are a handful of sites who use the maps. > First of all, a large number of sites in the US use > pathalias to generate email routing information, and the > rest either forward their mail through a site that does or > use Usenet Path: lines for replies (a disreputable practice!). > Intelligent mailers make the maps useful for everyone. I know, its the 'large number' that I take issue with. Its really not needed - if things were organised more there, no one would be more than two, or three at most hops from a bacckbone site, say one per state - then any site need only know of sites connected directly to it, and how to reach the backbone - thats the default route. For example, to reach me from the US, you can use any of the following 'routes': ....!uunet!mcvax!axis!philip ....!uunet!mcvax!inria!axis!philip The second is the 'real' route - but ALL european backbones reroute ALL mail - putting the 'inria' site in there is redundant. But, I know its not so macho if you don't have a disk full of uucp maps, and spend 5 hours every night churning away with pathalias .. > ]System 5.3 soon - because this is only protected by copyright, and I > ]don't suppose that you agree with that either ? > > First of all, the primary protection on AT&T UNIX software > is not copyright, it's contract law - you can only get a > copy if you sign a contract that says you won't give it to > unauthorized people, and our crew of big nasty ugly lawyers > will bust you for violating your contract if you do. yes, I don't know why AT&T started putting copyright notices on everything, beccause, as you say, thre is a contract, and a licence agreement - and the licence conditions are *much* more restrictive than a copyright .. I suppose it was to cover themselves in the event of a 'leak' - once somone dumps something on my machine, without me asking, how am I supposed to be covered by a licence agreement I havn't signed -hence the copyright notices ? > The US government has recently signed the Berne copyright > agreement, which says that we agree to protect copyright of > other signers to the agreement, and apparently says that > anything is copyrighted, even without explicit copyright > notice, unless the author renounces copyright. So, in taking your article, and including sections of it in my reply, I suppose that I will give yet another reasont to the big nasty ugly lawyers to come after me (you forgot the copyright waiver :-). > The problem is that, in the past, the maps have not been > copyrighted, and it never occurred to anyone that they would be > - the network is a cooperative activity. The primary > readers of the maps have been software rather than humans, > and it never occurred to most of us to make our software > check for copyrights - who would publish a map and then say > you can't use it for the purpose one uses maps for? No one. That was never the intention - I have explained why it was done in other articles, no one seems to have argued with the reasons why it was done - the only problem was that there was nothing to explicitly say that it could be used for its intended purpose, something which seems too obvious to need saying, in my opinion. But then whereas every little boy in europe wants to be a fireman or astroanut, it seems that every little American boy wants to grow up to be a big bad nasty ugly AT&T lawyer ... :-) Philip
pengo@tmpmbx.UUCP (07/24/89)
Hello, since we are, by EUNET definitions, not a 'notable network', almost nobody will be interested in how we, the Sub-Net, handle the map problem currently under discussion. Nevertheless, since I have to experience my new keyboard a bit, I'll go ahead and put in my two cents: We too had the problem, that some people didn't like the idea that their name and address could be published widely through the distribution of our maps. The first step was to remove all 'sensitive' information like phone numbers and addresses from the posted maps completely. This was kind of unsatisfying: It was not possible anymore to look into the maps if one was looking for a site in a particular local area, which made the maps partially useless. Our current solution is, that we denote 'public' lines in our map files. All other lines are kept only at our map administrator's machine. This is simply done by using lower case field designators for private lines, and upper case for public one's. That is, if you don't want your phone number to appear in the posted map, you simply write "#p <phone-no>" in your map entry, and vice versa. I think this is a _bit_ more flexible than just saying: "Nobody is entitled to use our maps", which basically is what EUNET does. It is not even possible for us, as a Sub-Net "backbone" site, to get a map of DNET sites. Why ? Well, we could use the data for junk mailing. Oh my goodness. Oh, I forgot to mention how strongly I admire the last few statements of prominent EUNET gurus. It show how creative they are, and how well they're able to adopt to new situations. I do recognize that much of the pioneers work in european networking has been done by the EUNET, but I see no sense why they so strongly try to ignore the fact that for example we do valuable work as well, and that we are willing to coorporate. I see absolutely no sense in the current confrontation course. -Hans
clewis@eci386.uucp (Chris Lewis) (07/24/89)
I didn't actually get a copy of 1989Jul19.120102.19751@coms.axis.fr here, but since it was a followup to my article, it follows: In article <2444@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> wcs@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs) writes: >In article <1989Jul19.120102.19751@coms.axis.fr> philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes: >]This is just an example of refusing to understand how things *SHOULD* >]be done - all you Americans have got it wrong! :-) Americans? Moi? My how people jump to conclusions. [if someone has a copy of the whole thing, please send me a copy. Thanks.] The copyright says no use without authorization - we have to take it at face value. I hardly imagine that you want 10,000+ sites sending the copyright holder mail asking to use it every month! If the copyright notice is there to prevent it being used for junk mail, then prohibit use ONLY FOR THAT! -- Chris Lewis, R.H. Lathwell & Associates: Elegant Communications Inc. UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo}!lsuc!eci386!clewis Phone: (416)-595-5425
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (07/25/89)
In article <1989Jul22.101400.7588@coms.axis.fr> philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes: |[...] |That was never the intention - I have explained why it was done |in other articles, no one seems to have argued with the reasons why |it was done - the only problem was that there was nothing to explicitly |say that it could be used for its intended purpose, something which |seems too obvious to need saying, in my opinion. |But then whereas every little boy in europe wants to be |a fireman or astroanut, it seems that every little American boy |wants to grow up to be a big bad nasty ugly AT&T lawyer ... :-) Raght awn, bro... -- __ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \cc/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/\/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _< >_ "Mistah Kaldis, he T*d" - A Popsicle Now
leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (07/26/89)
In article <1989Jul22.101400.7588@coms.axis.fr> philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes: <In article <2444@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>, wcs@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs) writes: <> In article <1989Jul19.120102.19751@coms.axis.fr> philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes: <> ]Not every site in the world uses these maps, nor do they need to. <> ]In europe there are a handful of sites who use the maps. <> First of all, a large number of sites in the US use <> pathalias to generate email routing information, and the <> rest either forward their mail through a site that does or <> use Usenet Path: lines for replies (a disreputable practice!). <> Intelligent mailers make the maps useful for everyone. < <I know, its the 'large number' that I take issue with. <Its really not needed - if things were organised more there, no one <would be more than two, or three at most hops from a bacckbone site, <say one per state - then any site need only know of sites connected <directly to it, and how to reach the backbone - thats the default route. Ever try routing something a!b!c!d!e only to discover that c didn't know how to talk to d? Or get an address of the form abc@xyz where you've got no idea *where* xyz is? That's why people in North America want a *local* copy of the maps to refer to. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) (07/27/89)
In article <2293@qiclab.UUCP>, leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: > <I know, its the 'large number' that I take issue with. > <Its really not needed - if things were organised more there, no one > <would be more than two, or three at most hops from a bacckbone site, > <say one per state - then any site need only know of sites connected > <directly to it, and how to reach the backbone - thats the default route. > > Ever try routing something a!b!c!d!e only to discover that c didn't know > how to talk to d? Or get an address of the form abc@xyz where you've got > no idea *where* xyz is? That's why people in North America want a > *local* copy of the maps to refer to. No never. We don't use routing here - that is something than only USENET people seem to delight in doing. REAL networks do the routing for you - when did you last put directions on how to reach your correspondent on a letter ?, or consult a map of the telephone system to route your call from one exchange to another to eventually reach someone ? Never - of course not. Organise yourself properley, and these problems go away. Want to simpleify your routing database ? Take all of the EUnet countries, and modify each entry to show it directly connected to mcvax - it will work perfectly - in fact, any routing information you put in will be zapped when it reaches europe anyway. As to domain addresses, you are not requires to know how to reach any domain - BUT the entry point to your domain IS required to know. So, just pass any unknown domains to him - thats his job. You are only required to know how to route to any of your sub-domains, and to the manager of your top level domain - forget everything else. It really is so simple, why not do it ? Philip
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (07/28/89)
In article <1989Jul27.100344.8908@coms.axis.fr> philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes: >No never. We don't use routing here - that is something than only USENET >people seem to delight in doing. Of course you "use routing", Philip. Every network does. When someone attempts to mail to philip@coms.axis.fr, regardless of which network they are on, they must at least have a router that knows how to get to .fr. US UUCP sites have to solve the exact same set of problems as you do. >REAL networks do the routing for you - when did you last put directions >on how to reach your correspondent on a letter ?, or consult a map >of the telephone system to route your call from one exchange to another >to eventually reach someone ? Modern UUCP sites in the US are registered domain members, and they generally run software equivalent to smail to allow users to enter addresses in the user@host.domain format. To do this, a routing table is required, giving routes to at least a gateway for every top-level domain, as well as to all UUCP sites that are on the map but not yet a member of the domain. It's all automatic here, just like it is there. The configuration of the US UUCP-net is constantly changing because of rapid growth. To keep up to date, the UUCP project posts the UUCP map to comp.mail.maps. The "uuhosts" program automatically rebuilds the routing map as new postings arrive on comp.mail.maps, without manual intervention. It's all automatic. >Want to simpleify your routing database ? Take all of the EUnet countries, >and modify each entry to show it directly connected to mcvax - it will >work perfectly - in fact, any routing information you put in will be >zapped when it reaches europe anyway. It's up to the person maintaining the UUCP map for France to do this simplification. If all your sites are domainized and no one in France ever posts articles with a "site.UUCP" address, then the only French map entry we need is the one for the French gateway machine. The other map entries allow Brian Reid to generate fancy maps, but are not needed for mail routing. So you should have just stopped posting the French map (or asked the UUCP project people to stop) instead of adding that idiotic copyright restriction, and CAUSING hundreds of US site admins to break the law without knowing it (I never read the map, it's all done by software). >As to domain addresses, you are not requires to know how to reach >any domain - BUT the entry point to your domain IS required to know. >So, just pass any unknown domains to him - thats his job. People maintaining UUCP maps are supposed to remove entries that are no longer required because of domainization; the map maintainer has screwed up here. I'd be happy to save on the modem traffic if these maps are no longer needed. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (07/28/89)
Nobody has yet to tell me why they object so much to the broadcast maps showing up in direct mail mailing lists. If this is not a serious problem, why all the fuss? I have yet to get any such mail. I get tons more junk mail from the conferences I attend, and I don't broadcast my name and address there. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Scott Reynolds) (07/28/89)
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Nobody has yet to tell me why they object so much to the broadcast >maps showing up in direct mail mailing lists. If this is not a serious >problem, why all the fuss? I have yet to get any such mail. I get >tons more junk mail from the conferences I attend, and I don't broadcast >my name and address there. I can't say that I object too strongly -- it's not my postage they are wasting -- but I get at least 4 different periodicals that are quite obviously addressed to my computer. Not me, mind you, the machine. Not only that but there are always 2 copies of each because somebody decided that the name of the system was too long and broke it into two distinct parts. The junk mail I do get is always totally unrelated to me, also. If it was a higher volume I might care a little more; I get things to give me "X gigabyte mass storage for your workstation" and to "upgrade your Sun's memory" (I run a 286 box, which is quite evident from the map entry). The down side, I suppose, is that the USPS is not charging enough to cover all of their costs and all this junk puts an even greater burden on them. At least in my area the Postal folks have too much work and too little space to do it in. The best solution to this would seem to be simply to put a limit on commercial use of the map entries. -- Scott Reynolds rutgers!mailrus!clip!clmqt!scott Enterprise Information System scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US "Insufficient facts always invite danger." -- Spock
dg@lakart.UUCP (David Goodenough) (07/31/89)
philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) sez: > In article <2293@qiclab.UUCP>, leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >> <I know, its the 'large number' that I take issue with. >> <Its really not needed - if things were organised more there, no one >> <would be more than two, or three at most hops from a bacckbone site, >> <say one per state - then any site need only know of sites connected >> <directly to it, and how to reach the backbone - thats the default route. >> >> Ever try routing something a!b!c!d!e only to discover that c didn't know >> how to talk to d? Or get an address of the form abc@xyz where you've got >> no idea *where* xyz is? That's why people in North America want a >> *local* copy of the maps to refer to. > > No never. We don't use routing here - that is something than only USENET > people seem to delight in doing. > > REAL networks do the routing for you - when did you last put directions > on how to reach your correspondent on a letter ?, or consult a map > of the telephone system to route your call from one exchange to another > to eventually reach someone ? > > Never - of course not. > Organise yourself properley, and these problems go away. Yes - that's just what the domains in the US are doing. Which is fine and dandy for those that have the time and the motivation to do so. But, Mr. Peake, if you would be so good as to get down off your high horse, and recognise that there _ARE_ advantages of being part of an "organised anarchy" - my P.C. at home has an address, all I did was send in a map entry. Or consider me - I don't have the time or the inclination to do whatever is necessary to "domainize" lakart - I would have to find an MX forwarder, register us, change our map entry or (far worse) mess with my local sendmail.cf. It took me a week to get it working, and if you think I'm going to touch it, you've got another think coming. And for what gain? The amount of E-mail we send out here simply doesn't justify it. And should I do the same for my P.C. at home? Here is it's map entry - perusal of it will tell a great deal of why I'd like to leave it alone: ------ #N pallio #S Televideo TS803; Zilog Z80A; CP/M 2.2 #O Gurus Anonymous #C David Goodenough #E pallio!dg #T +1 617 244 4989 #P 541 Commonwealth Ave., Newton, MA, 02159 #L 42 20 N / 71 11 W #R For real - this is a CP/M machine #W pallio!dg (David Goodenough); Fri Feb 10 13:17:18 EST 1989 # pallio lakart(DAILY) ------ > As to domain addresses, you are not requires to know how to reach > any domain - BUT the entry point to your domain IS required to know. > So, just pass any unknown domains to him - thats his job. The only problem is, no one site could handle being the single gateway for the .UUCP "domain", there's just too much traffic. So we can't get "registered" and set up a gateway. The concept of multiple gateways has been hashed back and forth here many times over, and each time the outcome is the same: there is no solution that is acceptable to everyone. > It really is so simple, why not do it ? For the _LAST_ time - mcvax is the gateway to Europe. There _IS_ no corresponding gateway for .UUCP in the U.S. -- dg@lakart.UUCP - David Goodenough +---+ IHS | +-+-+ ....... !harvard!xait!lakart!dg +-+-+ | AKA: dg%lakart.uucp@xait.xerox.com +---+
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (08/01/89)
In article <851@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US> scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Scott Reynolds) writes: > >brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > >>Nobody has yet to tell me why they object so much to the broadcast >>maps showing up in direct mail mailing lists. If this is not a serious >>problem, why all the fuss? I have yet to get any such mail. I get >>tons more junk mail from the conferences I attend, and I don't broadcast >>my name and address there. > >I can't say that I object too strongly -- it's not my postage they are >wasting -- but I get at least 4 different periodicals that are quite >obviously addressed to my computer. Not me, mind you, the machine. Not >only that but there are always 2 copies of each because somebody decided >that the name of the system was too long and broke it into two distinct >parts. So? If you don't want it, throw it away. The point is, I (and some others) _DO_ want that kind of material. We just might, one time out of a hundred, come across something useful. No, it doesn't happen often. It hasn't happened yet. But it DOES happen. And the cost to you, to receive the material in the mail, is zero. So what's the problem? If you claim that it takes too long to sift through the mail then trash all the junk unseen -- but do be aware that you might miss the gem in the rough, as it were. >The down side, I suppose, is that the USPS is not charging enough to cover all >of their costs and all this junk puts an even greater burden on them. At >least in my area the Postal folks have too much work and too little space >to do it in. Then that is the USPS' problem. If the cost of mail reflected reality, then your complaint would disappear. Why don't you complain about the cost of the mails -- and work to get the USPS to actually cover it's own costs. If that was to happen, it would actually BENEFIT the USPS to get junk mail. Think about it. >The best solution to this would seem to be simply to put a limit on >commercial use of the map entries. No, the best solution, if you don't want your address known, is to not publish it. I've said this before -- if you don't like the fact that people can use your name from the maps for a mailing list, simply change the "#P" line to something like "Unpublished". Then you won't get any junk mail. In any event, the mail generated from "mailing listing" the maps is a needle in the haystack of junk mail that we receive. Hell, I am pretty sure our VENDORS sell our name and address to computer-related mailing list organizers. These are people who we do business with, and give them our address so they can ship product here! >Scott Reynolds rutgers!mailrus!clip!clmqt!scott -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
allbery@nc386.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (08/02/89)
In article <1989Jul27.100344.8908@coms.axis.fr>, philip@coms (Philip Peake) writes: +--------------- | No never. We don't use routing here - that is something than only USENET | people seem to delight in doing. | | REAL networks do the routing for you - when did you last put directions | on how to reach your correspondent on a letter ?, or consult a map | of the telephone system to route your call from one exchange to another | to eventually reach someone ? +--------------- Sigh. You folks have a rationally organized network, for largely the same reasons that led to the current EUnet/unido "discussion" in other newsgroups. And the U.S. has a haphazard "connect to whoever'll take you" network "structure" which leads to U.S. attacks on EUnet. Simplifying the network in the U.S. just plain won't happen. Therefore some means of routing is *necessary*. This is why there are maps: a program called "pathalias" takes the maps and generates a routing database which allows people to send mail as if they were in a rational network, and the mailer can look up the destination in the database. +--------------- | As to domain addresses, you are not requires to know how to reach | any domain - BUT the entry point to your domain IS required to know. | So, just pass any unknown domains to him - thats his job. +--------------- Got news for you: .UUCP is ***NOT*** a domain. It is a hack for use in the path-lookup scheme described above. Europe may well be another matter -- but, just as EUnetters like to flame U.S. posters for not understanding their situation, I must point out that you don't understand *our* situation if you expect us to abolish the maps. +--------------- | It really is so simple, why not do it ? +--------------- Because UUCP is not a domain, has no top-level domain server, and has no lower-level servers. It just has a bunch of us UUCP sites which send point-to-point, with connections that can change daily (sometimes hourly!) and no way to construct a rational domain structure. (It *is* possible for a UUCP site to get a domainized Internet address -- we have one, but it's attached to the old box until we officially cut over the news and mail feeds to this one, at which time it will become both ncoast.uucp and NCoast.ORG -- but that does NOT make our UUCP neighbors subdomains of .NCoast.ORG because they have not been registered with the DNS (and some of them are already registered: hal.cwru.edu, cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu, necntc.nec.com, hop.toad.com, devon.lns.pa.us, etc.). Making this worse are some of the "lesser" connections to ncoast/nc386: sidrat, axspc, mondo -- all running UUPC under MS-DOS, none of which are or need to be registered with the DNS. The reality of Usenet here in the U.S. makes a coherent domain structure quite impossible. There is a growing number of registered Internet sites, but there will always be sites which don't get registered because it's not worth the effort, and there will sometimes be a need to reach them via mail. The ease of setting up a news/mail feed here makes it certain. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu * This message brought to you courtesy the "Watcher" for the 4th NCoast * "ncoast #4 regenerates into ncoast #5 on 8/6/89!" -- the Watcher (aka nc386)
tombre@weissenburger.crin.fr (Karl Tombre) (08/02/89)
In article <1989Jul31.213209.25623@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >The point is, I (and some others) _DO_ want that kind of material. We just >might, one time out of a hundred, come across something useful. No, it >doesn't happen often. It hasn't happened yet. But it DOES happen. And >the cost to you, to receive the material in the mail, is zero. And the European point is precisely that for us, receiving such material via Email has not a zero cost... we pay for getting it over the pond and over our national borders... Now, this doesn't mean that the copyright notice couldn't be made more explicit (as suggested elsewhere in this discussion) or other ways found for dealing with the problem. DISCLAIMER : IN NO WAY DO I SPEAK FOR EUNET OR EUUG. THIS IS ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION. --- Karl Tombre @ CRIN / INRIA Lorraine EMAIL : tombre@loria.crin.fr - POST : BP 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (08/02/89)
In article <90@loria.crin.fr> tombre@weissenburger.crin.fr (Karl Tombre) writes: >In article <1989Jul31.213209.25623@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >>The point is, I (and some others) _DO_ want that kind of material. We just >>might, one time out of a hundred, come across something useful. No, it >>doesn't happen often. It hasn't happened yet. But it DOES happen. And >>the cost to you, to receive the material in the mail, is zero. >And the European point is precisely that for us, receiving such material >via Email has not a zero cost... we pay for getting it over the pond >and over our national borders... But the previous poster was referring to _physical_ mail. Here in the US, the USPS (U S Postal Service) only deals with physical mail. The telephone and and other electronic services are supplied by private and totally separated companies. When we say "mail", refer to the USPS or Snail mail, say "junk mail" we're referring to physical, paper mail like letters. E-mail is not involved in these references at all. Junk fax is another, similiar problem. -- M F Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer Dryden Flight Research Facility Of course I don't speak for NASA
scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Scott Reynolds) (08/03/89)
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >In article <851@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US> scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Scott Reynolds) writes: >> >>brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >> >>>Nobody has yet to tell me why they object so much to the broadcast >>>maps showing up in direct mail mailing lists. If this is not a serious >>>problem, why all the fuss? I have yet to get any such mail. I get... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>I can't say that I object too strongly -- it's not my postage they are >>wasting -- but I get at least 4 different periodicals that are quite >>obviously addressed to my computer. >So? So all I'm saying is that *I* get some of this mail. >If you don't want it, throw it away. Did I say I didn't want it? All I said is I don't object too strongly. Hardly at all, and only slightly when I get junk that is obviously not for my environment or needs (which you didn't mention here). >So what's the problem? There is no problem. In fact, I wasn't complaining. I was just letting Brad know that there are people out here that _do_ get junk mail from the maps. You do, too, obviously. So there you go, Brad, there's two! :) >>The best solution to this would seem to be simply to put a limit on >>commercial use of the map entries. > >No, the best solution, if you don't want your address known, is to not >publish it. I've said this before -- if you don't like the fact that people >can use your name from the maps for a mailing list, simply change the "#P" >line to something like "Unpublished". Then you won't get any junk mail. You forgot to say "in my opinion" or some similar words. Don't expect the world to change to conform to your ideas, Karl. At least I qualified my statement with "would seem to be" -- just a thought on my part, not a definitive How To Control Map-Related Junk Mail. I stand by my original statement; if all the sites in region X want to be kept off of mailing lists, then let the map coordinator for region X put in a statement that specifically restricts use for profit of the maps while allowing their use as was originally intended. Everyone's happy except for the people that want to make money off the maps. Say, Karl, you wouldn't happen to be one of them? :-) :-) >Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) -- Scott Reynolds rutgers!mailrus!clip!clmqt!scott Enterprise Information System scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US "Insufficient facts always invite danger." -- Spock
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (08/04/89)
In article <857@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US> scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Scott Reynolds) writes: >karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > >>In article <851@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US> scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Scott Reynolds) writes: >>> >>>brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>> ..... >Did I say I didn't want it? All I said is I don't object too strongly. >Hardly at all, and only slightly when I get junk that is obviously not for >my environment or needs (which you didn't mention here). > >>So what's the problem? > >There is no problem. In fact, I wasn't complaining. I was just letting >Brad know that there are people out here that _do_ get junk mail from the >maps. You do, too, obviously. So there you go, Brad, there's two! :) Yep. I get it once in a while. Never seen the problem with it. >>>The best solution to this would seem to be simply to put a limit on >>>commercial use of the map entries. >> >>No, the best solution, if you don't want your address known, is to not >>publish it. I've said this before -- if you don't like the fact that people >>can use your name from the maps for a mailing list, simply change the "#P" >>line to something like "Unpublished". Then you won't get any junk mail. > >You forgot to say "in my opinion" or some similar words. Don't expect the >world to change to conform to your ideas, Karl. At least I qualified my >statement with "would seem to be" -- just a thought on my part, not a >definitive How To Control Map-Related Junk Mail. I don't expect anyone to change to conform to my ideas. I expect each individual site to make their own choice. Marking your map entry by changing the "#P" to something not useful for mailing list generation does exactly that. Making suggestions that one person, who wasn't elected or is in any other way representative of the group, decide whether the members of that group want their information used appears to be more of a "I'll decide for you" action from where I sit. >I stand by my original statement; if all the sites in region X want to be >kept off of mailing lists, then let the map coordinator for region X put in >a statement that specifically restricts use for profit of the maps while >allowing their use as was originally intended. Everyone's happy except for >the people that want to make money off the maps. Ah, but what if 51% want to be left off, and 49% don't? If you restrict the map file you have prevented those who want to receive that information. Where do you draw the line? Any decision you make on a class-basis is going to exclude some people and make them unhappy. An individual choice seems to be the best way to go from my point of view. I certainly don't want the map coordinator for this area deciding that we don't want mailing lists to use our map information! >Enterprise Information System scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer) (08/04/89)
> In article <1989Jul27.100344.8908@coms.axis.fr> philip@coms.axis.fr (Philip Peake) writes: >REAL networks do the routing for you - when did you last put directions >on how to reach your correspondent on a letter ?, or consult a map >of the telephone system to route your call from one exchange to another >to eventually reach someone ? Routing by hand is (mostly) an anachronism from the early days of Usenet, before the Internet, pathalias, comp.mail.maps and smail, when things were done strictly with uucp. Nowadays, one can either run pathalias and smail and do routing on their machine, or forward their mail to a nearby machine that does. Routing by hand can still be useful when there are problems. It's ironic that you flame us for wanting the maps, then flame us for not using them (routing by hand). >Want to simpleify your routing database ? Take all of the EUnet countries, >and modify each entry to show it directly connected to mcvax - it will >work perfectly - in fact, any routing information you put in will be >zapped when it reaches europe anyway. As Joe Buck pointed out, this is the job of the people who maintain the maps for the coutries served by mcvax. Go ahead and get them to do it, if you can. We'll be happy to save the space and the cycles spent crunching your country's superfluous map entries. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl
karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer) (08/04/89)
In article <1989Aug2.014557.4056@nc386.uucp>, allbery@nc386.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: > Sigh. You folks have a rationally organized network, for largely the same > reasons that led to the current EUnet/unido "discussion" in other newsgroups. > And the U.S. has a haphazard "connect to whoever'll take you" network > "structure" which leads to U.S. attacks on EUnet. By implication, "our" network is irrationally organized. While it is true that EUnet has a nice hierarchical network, connectivity is correspondingly lower, leaving EUnet heavily broken if certain top-level machines were to go down, for example, mcvax. Have a look at Brian Reid's PostScript maps. That spaghetti covering the US map is indicative of a great deal of redundancy. Even the loss of uunet would not cause the disruption of Usenet that the loss of mcvax would do for EUnet. With all this extra, perhaps redundant, connectivity, power is more widely distributed. That is, if some backbone's siteadmin's head suddenly imploded and they started doing something obnoxious with our mail or something, we could declare them as DEAD in our maps and roll on, oblivious to their antics, while still getting our mail and news delivered. Another advantage of the connect-to-whoever'll-take-you style of network, if you're not elitist, is that it is easier to get connected to...and to put my computer where my mouth is, send email to karl@sugar.hackercorp.com and be willing to pay any tolls to reach (713) 438-5018 and I'll gladly set up a signon for your machine. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl
scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Scott Reynolds) (08/04/89)
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >In article <857@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US> scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Scott Reynolds) writes: >I don't expect anyone to change to conform to my ideas. I expect each >individual site to make their own choice. Marking your map entry by changing >the "#P" to something not useful for mailing list generation does exactly >that. I can see your point, and my major objection to this is the fact that there are legitimate not-for-profit uses of the maps (e.g. person from site A needs to contact person from site B). I've realized that in many cases either they should have that information available to them anyway or they would be better off posting a general request to the net. This isn't always true though. >>I stand by my original statement; if all the sites in region X want to be ^^^ >>kept off of mailing lists, then let the map coordinator for region X put in >>a statement that specifically restricts use for profit of the maps while >>allowing their use as was originally intended. Everyone's happy except for >>the people that want to make money off the maps. >Ah, but what if 51% want to be left off, and 49% don't? If you restrict the >map file you have prevented those who want to receive that information. I did say "all" and not some percentage of that, but you raise a valid (and different) question. This whole thing has been defended right along by Philip Peake, though, and I'm interested to hear which case we are talking about here. Do all of the .fr sites want this change made? Just some of them? a majority? >Where do you draw the line? Any decision you make on a class-basis is going >to exclude some people and make them unhappy. I draw the line at 100% and no less, but that's only my opinion. >An individual choice seems to >be the best way to go from my point of view. I certainly don't want the map >coordinator for this area deciding that we don't want mailing lists to use >our map information! The map coordinator doesn't decide; the sites within that region decide. In the U.S. I doubt that any such thing would ever come to pass, but for the specific case of the .fr maps, what is the problem? Or for any region that chooses to restrict its maps this way? As long as every site in that region is aware of and approves of such a thing, I can't see why anybody would object. >Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) -- Scott Reynolds rutgers!mailrus!clip!clmqt!scott Enterprise Information System scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US "Insufficient facts always invite danger." -- Spock
allbery@nc386.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (08/09/89)
Sometimes I wonder if people deliberately misconstrue net postings just to start an argument.... In article <5517@ficc.uu.net>, karl@ficc (karl lehenbauer) writes: +--------------- | In article <1989Aug2.014557.4056@nc386.uucp>, allbery@nc386.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: | > Sigh. You folks have a rationally organized network, for largely the same | > reasons that led to the current EUnet/unido "discussion" in other newsgroups. | > And the U.S. has a haphazard "connect to whoever'll take you" network | > "structure" which leads to U.S. attacks on EUnet. | | By implication, "our" network is irrationally organized. While it is true that | EUnet has a nice hierarchical network, connectivity is correspondingly lower, | leaving EUnet heavily broken if certain top-level machines were to go down, | for example, mcvax. +--------------- I did not say that the U.S. organization was bad, simply that it was not optimally organized by European standards. As you pointed out (and as I pointed out in the part of my posting that you failed to include), the U.S. method has other advantages. In any case, my point is that the U.S. cannot simply hop onto the European bandwagon and expect things to suddenly start working better; it's far more likely that things would break massively. Capsule summary: Europe has a network structure (EUnet) which works for Europe. The U.S. has a network structure that works for the U.S. At the gateway level, the two are compatible. So why is each side trying to force the other into its own mold? It's unnecessary and potentially disastrous. Now can we get off this silly thread? ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu "Why do trans-atlantic transfers take so long?" "Electrons don't swim very fast." -john@minster.york.ac.uk and whh@PacBell.COM