tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) (06/15/88)
In article <10373@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: > Let me try to offer a brief summary on what's going on at AT&T Bell > Laboratories regarding Usenet. This is not an official statement by > the company, but I was involved in many of the discussions that lead > up to the new policy. > > In a sentence, what triggered all this was that top management (*very* > top management) noticed Usenet, and wondered if it was a Bad Thing. > Bad Things, in corporate America, are those that cost money, and it's > fairly obvious that Usenet has that potential in a lot of ways. > ..... <text deleted> > The price of official support, though, is official control, and top > management did not feel that we should pay for carrying other folks' > traffic. This is especially true when you realize that our gateways > would then compete with our own commercial service, ATTMAIL. Hence > the decision to stop forwarding 3rd-party mail. > > Note what we're not doing: > > a) We're not cutting off email contacts to the outside world. > ..... <text deleted> In other words, at least the way I interpret it, one of the things that "*very* top management" at AT&T is trying to do is eliminate the costs associated with forwarding E-mail on the UUCP network that originates from sites outside of AT&T and is destined for sites outside of AT&T. They feel that AT&T should only have to pay the costs of E-mail within the AT&T sub-net, or E-mail originating from or destined to an internal AT&T site. They should not have to pay the cost of carrying E-mail from Joe_Schmoe@non.AT&T.site.a to Compu_Nerd@non.AT&T.site.b. If people want to send E-mail from site.a to site.b, where neither site is within the AT&T sub-net, then those people should either: a) find another route that *doesn't* go through AT&T, or b) they can always use ATTMAIL :-). After all, AT&T already pays enough money to handle just the volume of mail that has some "useful" purpose to AT&T sites/personnel. Besides, the UUCP network is well connected enough to be able to find alternate routings. Well, that seems *reasonable* enough. With such being the case, then it would appear to me to be equally as reasonable for *non-AT&T* sites to NOT pass through mail originating from within the AT&T sub-net, or destined to the AT&T sub-net. After all, the non-AT&T sites already pay enough money to handle all of the E-mail that is *not* useful to AT&T. Why should they be expected to bear the cost of handling AT&T's business? It serves no purpose to them, does it? Besides, AT&T *should be* well connected enough to be able to find alternate routings to non-AT&T sites. And, if all else fails, they can always *use* ATTMAIL. Well, that seems *reasonable* enough. :-) Please understand, I think that *both* approaches are *equally* unreasonable. I don't think that it is fair for AT&T to expect non-AT&T sites to forward their mail, if they won't do the same for others. On the other hand, I don't think that it is fair to expect AT&T to have to shoulder the very heavy burden that has been placed on them for some time now, just because they happen to be well connected and have smart routers. People at non-AT&T sites should make a CONCERTED EFFORT to both a) find *some* paths that don't route via AT&T, and b) install their *own* smart routers (and keep *current* UUCP maps :-) ). At the same time, it would be easy enough for AT&T to greatly reduce it's load by simply adjusting the "cost" value in their map entries. Get rid of all of those DEDICATED, HOURLY/4, DEMAND, etc. entries, and replace them with something slightly less tempting to use. Pathalias/routers won't know if you're lying :-). I only hope that *somebody* at AT&T sees this, and it gives them cause to think a little bit harder/longer/deeper about what they are going to do. If not, then I *do* hope that all non-AT&T sites stop handling AT&T's E-mail. What's fair is fair. (At least *I* think it's fair :-) -Ted Ted Manos tmanos@aocgl.{COM,UUCP,UU.NET} or ...!{uunet,mcdchg}!aocgl!tmanos
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (06/16/88)
In article <27.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) writes: [deleted a lot of article suggested that if AT&T refuses to route non-AT&T mail, then all other sites should refuse to route AT&T mail.] >... I don't think that it is fair for AT&T to expect non-AT&T >sites to forward their mail, if they won't do the same for others. On >the other hand, I don't think that it is fair to expect AT&T to have to >shoulder the very heavy burden that has been placed on them for some >time now, just because they happen to be well connected and have smart >routers. People at non-AT&T sites should make a CONCERTED EFFORT to >both a) find *some* paths that don't route via AT&T, and b) install >their *own* smart routers (and keep *current* UUCP maps :-) ). >-Ted >Ted Manos tmanos@aocgl.{COM,UUCP,UU.NET} or ...!{uunet,mcdchg}!aocgl!tmanos I agree with Ted, and I'm glad somebody finally said it. But now for some "real" news.admin stuff... I'm trying to do b) above. I have pathalias, smail, uuhosts, and uumail and while I understand basically what they all do, I've been unable to locate a installation proceedure for the "correct" or "normal" way of setting it all up. I need some help from a "real" news admin to figure out what the appropriate arrangement of the data-base files are and setting up the tools to parse the map info from the net and keep the maps up to date. Can any of you experts out there lend a hand? Via E-mail, of course. Thank you. I'm serious; I really don't know what I'm doing. -- David Beckemeyer (david@bdt.uucp) | "Yea I've got medicine..." as the Beckemeyer Development Tools | cookie cocks a his Colt, "and if 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | you don't keep your mouth shut, I'm UUCP: {unisoft,sun}!hoptoad!bdt!david | gonna give you a big dose of it!"
root@mjbtn.UUCP (Mark J. Bailey) (06/17/88)
In article <27.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP>, tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) writes: > > With such being the case, then it would appear to me to be equally as > reasonable for *non-AT&T* sites to NOT pass through mail originating > from within the AT&T sub-net, or destined to the AT&T sub-net. After > all, the non-AT&T sites already pay enough money to handle all of the > E-mail that is *not* useful to AT&T. Why should they be expected to > bear the cost of handling AT&T's business? It serves no purpose to > them, does it? Besides, AT&T *should be* well connected enough to be > able to find alternate routings to non-AT&T sites. And, if all else > fails, they can always *use* ATTMAIL. Well, that seems *reasonable* > enough. :-) > I agree! I wonder (well, I am sure) if that all of the meetings that took place to arrive at the decision that they made, somebody would have had to have brought this up. And a little thinking makes it sound quite obvious. While on the one hand, AT&T does have a commercial service, and they don't want to compete with it, they do have subscribers (and happy ones I am sure) that pay for it. But there is a portion of traffic that goes thru UUCP that is equally important (as well as news) that DOES bear costs on non-AT&T sites. If AT&T uses the non-AT&T sites to pass their traffic, are they not getting it for free if for the same channel, they don't offset the costs for non-AT&T sites by bearing costs themselves of 3rd party traffic? Of course, this is old news, so old, some people seem to have forgotten about it. While I am not a majorly connected site, I could be one day. Is AT&T going to adjust their paths files to not use my site? That is a cumbersome task - when you think of EVERY site. In such a case, it would not bother me, as long as I could do the same with them. They may have a commercial service to protect. That is fine and dandy. But if I won't be able to share their media with a message in transit, why should I share mine. It is the "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours that makes this net so fascinating. Sharing. Some of us can share more than others. Those of us with less, would probably share more if we had it. At least I would. > the other hand, I don't think that it is fair to expect AT&T to have to > shoulder the very heavy burden that has been placed on them for some > time now, just because they happen to be well connected and have smart > routers. People at non-AT&T sites should make a CONCERTED EFFORT to > both a) find *some* paths that don't route via AT&T, and b) install > their *own* smart routers (and keep *current* UUCP maps :-) ). At the > same time, it would be easy enough for AT&T to greatly reduce it's load > by simply adjusting the "cost" value in their map entries. Get rid of > all of those DEDICATED, HOURLY/4, DEMAND, etc. entries, and replace them > with something slightly less tempting to use. Pathalias/routers won't > know if you're lying :-). This sounds like a much nicer alternative. As smart-mailers infiltrate the net, it is pathalias that does a lot of the routing. Even while some people try to hard code a path, some sites along the way always reroute mail according to pathalias. AT&T does list enourmous connectivity. Codas has been on the way out for months now, and I still can't get it out of some of my frequently used paths (even using the -d codas option to pathalias). If AT&T raised the PRICE of their link, then over time, pathalias would by nature reduce routing through AT&T. That does not require any work other than (well in general) editting d.usa.oh.1. Simple? At least in principal, it makes sense. > > I only hope that *somebody* at AT&T sees this, and it gives them cause > to think a little bit harder/longer/deeper about what they are going to > do. If not, then I *do* hope that all non-AT&T sites stop handling > AT&T's E-mail. What's fair is fair. (At least *I* think it's fair :-) > True! The Usenet population is not dumb. Some won't care, others aren't in a position to be involved, BUT others will definitely catch on. I don't think anyone wants to fight or argue with AT&T. There are always effects to causes, and sometimes they aren't clear up front. Hind sight IS 20/20. If the people at AT&T haven't got an answer for this one, they need to come up with one, as the relation between AT&T and Usenet has been a fruitful one in the past, and will hopefully continue to be so. While on the books, management sees a lot of money going into it, are they not benefitting from the rest of Usenet's collective knowledge? Is the cost of 3rd party mail too much for that? Mark. -- Mark J. Bailey "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear!" USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37130 ___________________________ VOICE: +1 615 893 4450 / +1 615 896 4153 | JobSoft UUCP: ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!root | Design & Development Co. FIDO: Mark Bailey at Net/Node 1:116/12 | Murfreesboro, TN USA
haugj@pigs.UUCP (The Beach Bum) (06/17/88)
In article <270@mjbtn.UUCP>, root@mjbtn.UUCP (Mark J. Bailey) writes: > True! The Usenet population is not dumb. Some won't care, others aren't > in a position to be involved, BUT others will definitely catch on. I don't > think anyone wants to fight or argue with AT&T. There are always effects > to causes, and sometimes they aren't clear up front. Hind sight IS 20/20. Yes. And next time I add phone lines, AT&T will not be the long distance carrier. It's time to start being CHEAP about long distance service, the same way AT&T is being CHEAP about USENET and UUCP. (signed) Another dissatisfied AT&T customer. -- The Beach Bum Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers UUCP: ...!killer!rpp386!jfh jfh@rpp386.uucp :SMAILERS "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (06/17/88)
[Lots of things said in the referenced articles, and others about forcing ]
[AT&T to pay individual sites for mail. What they say exactly, really isn't ]
[important, so why waste the bandwith? ]
The problem with cutting Bell Labs off or forcing them to pay for the
privilege to connect with your site probably isn't an issue for those people
suggesting it. However, for those who do legitimate business with people
at Bell Labs, there's a problem in antagonizing "the powers that be" in that
it could potentially cause problems in communication, and a lack of
productivity.
If attmail is every bit as good as Bell Labs says it is (which I doubt, but
that's just because I'm cynical about advertising) then it's well worth the
extra cost. AND, if attmail is as well connected as ihnp4 or uunet in terms
of uucp sites, then it might be worth it to be able to send telex's and
normal mail in the same manner (anyone who's used EasyLink will confirm that
it's not).
Or, to put it mildly, quitcher whining, and go out into the real world. :-)
--
David Bedno (aka The Cat in the Hat) Now appearing at: davidbe@sco.COM -OR-
...!{uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucbvax!ucscc}!sco!davidbe -OR-
At home: 408-425-5266 At work: 408-425-7222 x5123 (I'm probably here...)
Disclaimer: Not SCO's opinions. At least not that they've told me.
"...think of thermonuclear fusion, our mighty but mischevious friend."tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) (06/21/88)
In article <651@scovert.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: > The problem with cutting Bell Labs off or forcing them to pay for the > privilege to connect with your site probably isn't an issue for those people > suggesting it. However, for those who do legitimate business with people > at Bell Labs, there's a problem in antagonizing "the powers that be" in that > it could potentially cause problems in communication, and a lack of > productivity. > > ......[stuff about using ATTMAIL, etc. deleted]........ > > Or, to put it mildly, quitcher whining, and go out into the real world. :-) Who's doing the whining? Are you suggesting that you expect *everybody else* to pick up the communications tab for those few on the net (in terms of percentages) who are sending "legitimate business" mail back and forth to AT&T? So the rest of the net is to carry the stuff that will serve some purpose to AT&T and it's business partners, even though AT&T refuses to do the same for the rest of the net? Am I understanding this correctly? Can't AT&T, and those site that "need" to talk to AT&T afford to connect to uunet or each other directly, and thus not burden the rest of the net with part of their cost of doing business? BTW, do you *know* for a fact that I/we *don't* do business with AT&T? :-) [Again folks, please note that I *don't* want to see AT&T cut off from the net....I think it would be a damned shame at the very least. However, if AT&T carries through with it's plan to cut off the rest of the net, then I think the rest of the net should cut them off too. However, I think that we *should* give them a "grace period" in recognition of what they've done for the net in the past.] Ted Manos tmanos@aocgl.{COM,UUCP,UU.NET} or ...!{uunet,mcdchg}!aocgl!tmanos
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (06/22/88)
In article <30.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP>, tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) writes: # Who's doing the whining? Are you suggesting that you expect *everybody # else* to pick up the communications tab for those few on the net (in # terms of percentages) who are sending "legitimate business" mail back # and forth to AT&T? So the rest of the net is to carry the stuff that # will serve some purpose to AT&T and it's business partners, even though # AT&T refuses to do the same for the rest of the net? Am I understanding # this correctly? Can't AT&T, and those site that "need" to talk to AT&T # afford to connect to uunet or each other directly, and thus not burden # the rest of the net with part of their cost of doing business? # BTW, do you *know* for a fact that I/we *don't* do business with AT&T? :-) # [Again folks, please note that I *don't* want to see AT&T cut off from # the net....I think it would be a damned shame at the very least. # However, if AT&T carries through with it's plan to cut off the rest of # the net, then I think the rest of the net should cut them off too. # However, I think that we *should* give them a "grace period" in # recognition of what they've done for the net in the past.] The ONLY THING that AT&T is planning to stop carrying, as best as I have heard (there has been traffic on internal AT&T groups about this too) is MAIL BETWEEN TWO NON-AT&T SITES. NETNEWS WILL CONTINUE TO BE CARRIED. The analogous thing for the net to do would be to decline to carry AT&T's mail BETWEEN TWO AT&T SITES. (AT&T doesn't, and shouldn't, generate site-to-site mail with such routings anyhow.) So think about it a while before you get sore and start planning "revenge." -- |------------Dan Levy------------| THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE MINE ONLY | AT&T Data Systems Group | AND ARE NOT TO BE IMPUTED TO AT&T. | Skokie, Illinois | |-----Path: att!ttbcad!levy-----|
jerry@oliveb.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) (06/23/88)
In article <2761@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >The ONLY THING that AT&T is planning to stop carrying, as best as I have heard >(there has been traffic on internal AT&T groups about this too) is MAIL >BETWEEN TWO NON-AT&T SITES. NETNEWS WILL CONTINUE TO BE CARRIED. The >analogous thing for the net to do would be to decline to carry AT&T's >mail BETWEEN TWO AT&T SITES. (AT&T doesn't, and shouldn't, generate >site-to-site mail with such routings anyhow.) So think about it a while >before you get sore and start planning "revenge." No, not quite the same. Notice the philosophy. There is AT&T and then there is "the rest of the world". Sorry, there are other companies in the world, all of them different and many of them in competition with each other. The real analogous thing is for me to say that I won't forward mail between two non OLIVETTI sites. That would include mail from: AT&T->OLIVETTI->other_company I mean why should I pay the phone company for a UUCP call to "other_company" to deliver mail for someone else? In the case of AT&T it is doubly worse because I may be paying them for the privilige of delivering their mail. (Such a deal!) Now because companies, other than AT&T, are willing to forward my mail to sites that I don't have a direct connection to then I am willing to do the same for them. Now if what was actually meant was forwarding third party mail over AT&T internal links then that is much more reasonable. Someone at AT&T really should clarify this. The other thing to notice is the choice of locations for the three (count em three!) AT&T gateways. AT&T has offices all over the world, but all three gateways are located in the north east quarter of the USA! My nearest AT&T hub is >1800 miles away. I know you guys think Chicago is in the West but how about taking a look at a map some time.
rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (06/23/88)
From article <2761@ttrdc.UUCP>, by levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy): .... > The ONLY THING that AT&T is planning to stop carrying, as best as I have > heard (there has been traffic on internal AT&T groups about this too) is > MAIL BETWEEN TWO NON-AT&T SITES. NETNEWS WILL CONTINUE TO BE CARRIED. > The analogous thing for the net to do would be to decline to carry AT&T's > mail BETWEEN TWO AT&T SITES. .... > So think about it a while before you get sore and start planning "revenge." Not a complete analog: AT&T is refusing to carry mail routed from outside the company to outside the company. The difference is that many other companies exist out there for which "outside the company" is "everywhere else" -- thus any mail going.. ihnp4!company1!company2!user is liable to be bounced by company1 since it is going from outside company1 to outside company1. If you consider this unfair, then transpose att/company1 and tell me if company1!ihnp4!company2!user would get bounced by !ihnp4? This is what a lot of people on this net are wondering about. Note: to an extent, AT&T is getting picked on 'cause they're such a big site, but the action as announced does seem a little bit arbitrary. If AT&T wishes to cut external mail costs, it might just be better to reduce the connectivity values on the map entries for their machines and stop doing smart-routing to outside sites. This would encourage both people and smart-mailers to find other paths without getting them a) up in arms and b) confused (one-way mail paths aren't that much fun). Not long ago, I realized that USENET fit quite nicely into the (in)famous maxim "give according to ability, take according to need", because there is much mutual value to the net. Part of the problem with the AT&T pronuncement is that it seems to violate this unwritten rule which has ensured USENET's existance up to now. -- ------------- Stephen Samuel {ihnp4,ubc-vision,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve or userzxcv@uofamts.bitnet
glee@cognos.uucp (Godfrey Lee) (06/24/88)
In article <2761@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >The ONLY THING that AT&T is planning to stop carrying [...] is MAIL >BETWEEN TWO NON-AT&T SITES. >The analogous thing for the net to do would be to decline to carry AT&T's >mail BETWEEN TWO AT&T SITES. This is true iff #_of_ATT_sites == #_of_NON_ATT_sites, a bit arrogant don't you think? Just for the record, 1. ATT can do whatever it wants. 2. I can see strong reason for not allowing non-ATT sites to use ATT internal network to route non-ATT mail. 3. I think not allowing non-ATT mail to route thru ATT site without using ATT network means ATT is not doing its fair share. 4. Within (3) above, ATT should discourage others using it as THE mail routing host, which is getting less and less the case anyways. -- Godfrey Lee P.O. Box 9707 Cognos Incorporated 3755 Riverside Dr. VOICE: (613) 738-1440 FAX: (613) 738-0002 Ottawa, Ontario UUCP: uunet!mnetor!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!glee CANADA K1G 3Z4
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (06/24/88)
In article <2761@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >The ONLY THING that AT&T is planning to stop carrying, as best as I have heard >(there has been traffic on internal AT&T groups about this too) is MAIL >BETWEEN TWO NON-AT&T SITES. NETNEWS WILL CONTINUE TO BE CARRIED. The >analogous thing for the net to do would be to decline to carry AT&T's >mail BETWEEN TWO AT&T SITES. (AT&T doesn't, and shouldn't, generate >site-to-site mail with such routings anyhow.) So think about it a while >before you get sore and start planning "revenge." Dan, this is exactly the point. (For many of us anyway, if not for the poster you were responding to.) AT&T is leaving the backbone and becoming a gatewayed domain, in effect. What the net should understand very clearly is this: AT&T's high volume of traffic with the rest of the net means it will go from a major *pillar* of the net to a major *burden* on it. In the short term AT&T probably deserves a break after carrying so much for so long; in the long term, if it doesn't carry its weight it will find itself losing net.friends. What is USENET, after all, if not "carrying mail" between two other sites? If you and I talk via email right now, we rely on the good offices and generosity of any number of intermediate sites, few or none of whom have anything to do with AT&T. The bottom line is this: If everyone took the same decision AT&T just did, USENET would cease to exist. Perhaps there's an excuse for the decision, but I don't like the trend. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: are you kidding?
tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) (06/25/88)
In article <2761@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: > The ONLY THING that AT&T is planning to stop carrying, as best as I have heard > (there has been traffic on internal AT&T groups about this too) is MAIL > BETWEEN TWO NON-AT&T SITES. NETNEWS WILL CONTINUE TO BE CARRIED. The > analogous thing for the net to do would be to decline to carry AT&T's > mail BETWEEN TWO AT&T SITES. (AT&T doesn't, and shouldn't, generate > site-to-site mail with such routings anyhow.) So think about it a while > before you get sore and start planning "revenge." If you had read my prior postings on the subject a little more carefully, you would have seen that this is *EXACTLY* what I (and several others) had proposed. I don't think that *any* of us (certainly not me) had even mentioned cutting off AT&T from news feeds...*just* e-mail pass-through. And there, I *did* mean *any* e-mail pass-through. A lot of effect it would have on AT&T to stop passing through e-mail only between two AT&T sites! :^) If AT&T won't pass our mail (unless it is of some benefit to them to do so), give me a good reason why we (meaning non-AT&T sites) should continue to pass their mail (unless it is of some benefit to us). Also, if you had read my postings without your AT&T blinders on, you would have seen that I am *not* sore at AT&T, nor am I trying to get revenge. For me personally, I doubt *very* seriously that AT&T'd dropping mail pass-through will effect me at all. I have *never* knowingly sent *any* mail through an AT&T site, or expected them to route my mail for me. Not that I have anything against sending mail via an AT&T site. If I need a smart router to do my work for me, I send it via my uunet link, which I pay for, and thus am entitled to use. All I have proposed was that AT&T should expect to get the same treatment from the UUCP networking community at large as it is giving them. If that's being vengeful, and maybe it is but I don't feel that way, then I guess I was "seeking revenge". Ted Manos tmanos@aocgl.{COM,UUCP,UU.NET} or ...!{uunet,mcdchg}!aocgl!tmanos
haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) (06/28/88)
In article <32.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP>, tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) writes: > In article <2761@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: > > The ONLY THING that AT&T is planning to stop carrying, as best as I have heard > > (there has been traffic on internal AT&T groups about this too) is MAIL > > BETWEEN TWO NON-AT&T SITES. NETNEWS WILL CONTINUE TO BE CARRIED. The > > analogous thing for the net to do would be to decline to carry AT&T's > > mail BETWEEN TWO AT&T SITES. (AT&T doesn't, and shouldn't, generate > > site-to-site mail with such routings anyhow.) So think about it a while > > before you get sore and start planning "revenge." > > And there, I *did* mean *any* e-mail pass-through. A lot of effect it > would have on AT&T to stop passing through e-mail only between two AT&T > sites! :^) If AT&T won't pass our mail (unless it is of some benefit to > them to do so), give me a good reason why we (meaning non-AT&T sites) > should continue to pass their mail (unless it is of some benefit to us). at&t continuing to carry netnews only adds insult to injury. sure, they can take what they want and leave the rest of the burden of supporting the net to someone else. what at&t has done is the same as if every company on the net refused to talk any other company, or, maximally, no more than one other company. each user would then have subscribe to some public common data carrier, such as at&t-mail for mail service, with each of the public common data carriers having their own means of sending message between each other. an additional question which remains unanswered is will at&t handle third party mail for their usenet neighbors? if at&t has any non-at&t neighbors, and it must have at least one, then it is possible that dumb mailers which use the newspath: are going to generate mailpaths which include the at&t site in the path. if at&t does not have more than one non-at&t site, WHO IS GOING TO BE BRAVE ENOUGH TO GATEWAY ALL OF AT&T? while a full feed into .att.com is going to be no greater than a full feed into any other site, what site is going to be willing to feed all of the mail replies which at&t sites are going to generate back to .att.com? the best possible course of action for at&t to take would be to drop all small connections. for example, how many of us have uucp logins with ihnp4 (or had) and aren't large computer manufacturers? the mistake seems to be at&t allowing too many irresponsible sites to directly connect, in a recursive fashion, to their machines. one possible alternative is to decrease machine load by penalizing links which talk to systems which are actually using ihnp4 as a smart-host. or, simpler still, stop running a smart mailer on ihnp4. at&t has thrown the baby out with the bath water and needs to do something before the poor brat hits the concrete with a resounding thud. - john. -- The Beach Bum Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers UUCP: ...!killer!rpp386!jfh jfh@rpp386.uucp :SMAILERS "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (06/30/88)
Before you all go off half cocked about stopping to carry AT&T mail
please remeber this: AT&T Canada is a wholly owned but independently
operated subsiduary of AT&T. The Canadian AT&T has not made any
statement yay or nay about whether they will be following the lead of
the parent company please don't include them in your vengence
(deservered or not I don't have an opinion) until they have spoken.
--
Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment
UUCP: utgpu!ontmoh!------------\ VOICE: +1 416 323 2623
{attcan,utzoo}!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!norm ENVOY: N.SOLEY
"ZIK ZAK -- We make everything you need and you need everything we make"root@mjbtn.UUCP (Mark J. Bailey) (07/08/88)
In article <5156@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > losing net.friends. What is USENET, after all, if not "carrying mail" > between two other sites? If you and I talk via email right now, we rely > on the good offices and generosity of any number of intermediate sites, > few or none of whom have anything to do with AT&T. > > The bottom line is this: If everyone took the same decision AT&T just did, > USENET would cease to exist. Perhaps there's an excuse for the decision, > but I don't like the trend. I agree with Tom. If many of us start to refuse third party traffic, others besides ourselves will start to the same, thus killing our connectivity, and eventually Usenet will collapse into hundreds of "mini-Usenets" and, well, we might as well just become local area user nets....Usenet will vanish. Again, I sypathize with AT&T wanting to reduce traffic. While they are a [ BIG company, business is business. But their decision to cut third party traffic is a knife in the back to Usenet. I don't think they mean any bad intensions, I just feel that that particular decision will have a negative Usenet effect. In the long run, it may also damage Usenet news as news can become cluttered with debates and disintergrating connectivities as sites adjust to what all of us are feeling is fair...that if AT&T won't handle traffic that is third party to AT&T (in origin and content), then the rest of the net won't handle traffic party to AT&T, and everyone loses... INCLUDING AT&T. I am making a plea! To the powers that BE at AT&T or those who can give input to them, please re-evaluate and think of what damage to the net (maybe not physically, but prinicpal wise) the bouncing of third party traffic to AT&T would result. I (and obviously others) strongly feel that while the net will exist as long as one system calls another, slowly and surely, and war will start and it will spread like a cancer and destroy us all as people get mail bounced, become frustrated by the implied imbalance, etc. As I and others have suggested, if you want to cut volume, CHANGE YOUR MAP ENTRIES! With any type of entity, like our own United States system of government, a decision in "foreign" policy MUST encompass EVERY aspect that a decision or action might have on the "world". AND *ALSO*, it should listen to and make considerations based on world reaction and opinions. This is only good relations! From net murmurs, I see such a negative reaction developing. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT AT&T DOES *NOT* HAVE THE RIGHT TO WANT TO REDUCE TRAFFIC AND RESPECTIVE COSTS! The ONLY question is the bouncing of third party traffic! And it will probably get worse. As Tom said, you might find your net.friends dwindling and then what good will Usenet be to you anyway? Reducing traffic is one thing, bouncing third party traffic is sacrilege in the Usenet environment. You might call it the unpardonable sin, and I think you can probably see what I mean. While I and a large number of the rest of the net sites don't have a lot third party traffic passing through AT&T (when I do it is pathalias generated), it is the IDEA and *PRINCIPLE* of a site(s) refusing third party traffic that wields death (or fear thereof) for the beauty of Usenet! Therefore, I plead with you: AT&T - Please RECONSIDER the third party issue! There are more diplolmatic ---- ways (pathalias)! From a third party point of view, you might have a lion by the tail! -- Mark J. Bailey "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear!" USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37130 ___________________________ VOICE: +1 615 893 4450 / +1 615 896 4153 | JobSoft UUCP: ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!root | Design & Development Co. FIDO: Mark Bailey at Net/Node 1:116/12 | Murfreesboro, TN USA