dpk@holin.ATT.COM (Dave Kleppel) (07/13/88)
Boy is this one causing us grief! Unfortunately those of us who must
deal with this situation are not the ones who make the decisions around here.
However, those of you out in NETLAND be aware that there are some of us
AT&Ters who are making some noise about this. Odds are small that it will do
any good, but WE ARE TRYING.
Although I hate to agree with the subject line, I see it as a last resort
if we cannot get the powers that be to start passing third party traffic again.
Maybe if somebody "important" at this company starts getting their own e-mail
outside of AT&T bounced then they will realize that this idea is foolhardy and
counter-productive.
I only have one request for the system admins out there. Don't just cut
off AT&T immediately. Let us try to do something from the grassroots level.
If it doesn't work then we can use this most harsh alternative.
Thanks for you time, and I'll try to keep you all "posted" on the status.
Dave Kleppel
AT&T Data Systems Group
Holmdel, NJ
att!holin!dpk
dpk@holin.att.com
--
Dave Kleppel
AT&T Data Systems Group
Holmdel, NJ
{wherever}!{att}!holin!dpk (201)949-0110bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (07/14/88)
In article <84@holin.ATT.COM> dpk@holin.ATT.COM (Dave Kleppel) writes: > > Boy is this one causing us grief! Unfortunately those of us who must >deal with this situation are not the ones who make the decisions around here. I can't 100% disagree with Dave, but I have changed Followup-To to a spot that appears (to me) to be more appropriate. If you look over the map published in d.usa.oh.1, you can see that third party connections are not eliminated altogether. Mail will still flow into att and will flow out of att. It appears to me that if I want to mail into AT&T I can still get there without a hitch and if the addressee wants to respond, that will too. What I _won't_ be able to do is "back fence chat" with a non-AT&T site using AT&T resources. That does seem to fly in the face of a usenet understanding, "I promise to handle yours if you promise to handle mine", but I don't mind all that much since I get more out of AT&T people than they do out of me. > However, those of you out in NETLAND be aware that there are some of us >AT&Ters who are making some noise about this. Odds are small that it will do >any good, but WE ARE TRYING. > >Maybe if somebody "important" at this company starts getting their own e-mail >outside of AT&T bounced then they will realize that this idea is foolhardy and >counter-productive. Dave, I don't think that your mail to me would bounce. Not according to the map anyway. I see that killer is still "blessed" and, for the nonce, my site is, but I'm ready to have that plug pulled. As long as att is going to talk to rutgers, osu-cis, killer, and sun, I think you'll get out and we'll get in. It's not without precedent, DEC does restrict third party mail, IBM never handled it. You're certainly welcome to feel that your employer has let you down, but I don't think so. > I only have one request for the system admins out there. Don't just cut >off AT&T immediately. Let us try to do something from the grassroots level. >If it doesn't work then we can use this most harsh alternative. I really think that if we tried to do that to AT&T we'd be in a terrible pickle. We'd have to grab the map, decide whether the originating site was category 1, 2, or 3 and then nuke the ones we didn't like. Naw, most of us are too lazy for that. As soon as my site starts getting bounces for paths that are att!non-att, I'll go strangle the SA that sent it to me and make it stop. Mercy! They gave us four month's warning, can't we adjust to that? It's no worse than when codas "went dark"... > Thanks for you time, and I'll try to keep you all "posted" on the status. > >Dave Kleppel >AT&T Data Systems Group >Holmdel, NJ >att!holin!dpk >dpk@holin.att.com I, for one, appreciate Dave's concern. If AT&T was building a fence and was shooting everyone who climbed over it, he's dead right. That isn't what they appear to be doing. They seem to have said "We will participate without restriction in netnews. We will no longer provide conduit service for mail that is unrelated to AT&T". OK, that renegs on the unwritten usenet promise, but I don't perceive any serious damage done. REASON: Dave Kleppel makes a very understandable plea for no retribution for a decision in which he had no vote. We'd be silly, as a net, to think we could take from AT&T what they have so generously given us. -- Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Usenet: { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!bill