chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/30/88)
>| >On the other hand -- on the Internet, commercial activity is explicitly >| >against the rules and CAN get you in trouble. Add that to the large number >| >of Internet-based NNTP links and Brad's all-too-true statement above about >| >it happening all the time, and ask yourself if USENET is violating Internet >| >rules.... >| Maybe I'm dense, but I don't understand. >What does it matter if USENET violates Internet rules? Or are we to follow >other networks in complying with Internet rules because it is easier >than not complying? Here's the (potential) problem. A large amount of USENET data is slogged from place to place via NNTP over the Internet. Because of that, it's reasonable to assume that the Internet would require that data to conform to it's rules -- which, in a number of cases, it doesn't. That being taken as true, it then can be assumed that if the Internet chooses to notice (I'm sure they already know. Whether they choose to recognize NNTP links officially is up to them and politics), they can require that the sites passing NNTP data from place to place either limit said data to to conforming material (practically speaking, impossible) or turn off the links. You could turn off the NNTP links without killing USENET, but it would significantly impact connectivity and possibly segment some regions. That's why you have to worry about Internet restrictions. You're not on the net, but the data you're reading here very likely spent at least part of it's time borrowing Internet bandwidth, and is therefore subject to Internet rules and regulations. I think. >Brad specifically asked that those messages not be gatewayed onto >the Internet. And I'm *sure* the Automatic Gatewaying Software >complied. 8^) You can actually do that, if what you're doing is gatewaying to a mailing list (as I do with comp.sys.mac.hypercard). NNTP links are different. They're just like the uucp links from site to site, but use the Internet instead. Faster and cheaper. >We're always running into this "not allowed on the Internet" argument >and I would really like someone to intelligently define to me why >I should care. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It basically comes down to this. It's practically speaking impossible for a USENET message to propogate without propogating through the Internet at some point or another. This means that every message you read or post was on the Internet at some time -- which implies that even though you and your machine aren't on the Internet or accrue it's benefits, the message was and did, and is subject to the Internet regulations. It's not *your* responsibility, though -- it's the responsibility of the sites that are on the Internet who use NNTP. Of course, if they're told to shut down, you'll be affected as well. That's why you should care. Chuq Von Rospach Editor/Publisher, OtherRealms chuq@sun.COM I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him. For Brutus is an honorable man. So are they all, all honorable men.
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (11/30/88)
[I wrote:] | >What does it matter if USENET violates Internet rules? Or are we to follow | >other networks in complying with Internet rules because it is easier | >than not complying? In article <79319@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: | Here's the (potential) problem. A large amount of USENET data is slogged | from place to place via NNTP over the Internet. Because of that, it's | reasonable to assume that the Internet would require that data to conform to | it's rules -- which, in a number of cases, it doesn't. [rather complete expansion of this argument deleted] Well, I asked for intelligent arguments, and I got them. Don't you get a nice feeling when you have a mailbox full of intelligent mail? I had not realised the extent to which nntp had replaced the traditional backbone. Thats what can happen when you're off the net for a year or so. Chuq's article, and most of the letters, recalled to me a year ago when article propogation was much slower. So is this what happened to Stargate? People jumped on the free lunch of Internet, thus giving up the cheap lunch of Stargate. I think it's a pity it happened, but I agree, since "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch", the *cost* of submitting to the strictures of the Internet must be accepted. jim -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer" #define truth "I speak for myself" #define result "variable"
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/01/88)
I think Chuq means the ARPANET - the network paid for by the DCA. The Internet includes lots of people beyond this. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (12/03/88)
In article <2424@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I think Chuq means the ARPANET - the network paid for by the DCA. > >The Internet includes lots of people beyond this. Well, if we need to be that precise, then let's get it right. What he probably means is the Defense Data Network (DDN). The DDN is made up of two physical networks, Arpanet and Milnet. Arpanet is for research institutions doing work for DARPA, Milnet is for actual US military installations. The DDN came into being when we switched from NCP to TCP/IP in 1983. Before then the entire network was called Arpanet. The intent of the distinction was that networking research could continue on the Arpanet, while Milnet would be a stable network for production sites. For example, the switch to domain style names and use of name servers has been much faster on the Arpanet than Milnet, and a change to the PSN (the processors that connect hosts to the two networks) software that has been running on the Arpanet for a year is just now being run in test mode on Milnet. Also, the gateways between the Arpanet and Milnet were envisioned as only passing mail through, rather than allowing full connectivity; as far as I know, this has not yet been done. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar