webber@athos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (06/14/88)
In article <585@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) writes: > Mail into and out of AT&T through the "att" > gateway will continue. "att" is serving as a professionally run > replacement for ihnp4 and cbosgd. Would it be accurate to say that att now views itself as a very big leaf node? It will be interesting to see how the net deals with a leaf that generates as much traffic as att. > There is, in fact, a major reshaping of the email world in the works. > The current system is cooperative - people worry about delivering mail > first, and getting it paid for isn't a concern. ... > With X.400 beginning to be offered, commercial mail services are springing > up. These include ATTMAIL, Canada's Envoy, Britain's BTI, and so on. > There are others, not all are X.400: MCIMAIL, Easylink, Dialnet, etc. > (There are also services like UUNET which charge by connect time, and > which are nonprofit. They don't seem to count.) > > These services all charge the *sender* (except for COD mail) for each > message, and in general worry more about getting paid than about delivering > the message. So they won't pass a message unless they know who to bill. > ... > Comments? It is amusing to watch someone explain how the great hand of history is forcing them to shift the costs of the net on to others. As near as I can tell, all this talk about commercial email systems is rather silly as the only reason for them is because many people have not yet bought their own computer gear. How long do you think it will be before answering machines will talk Bell 212 and convert to speech on playback. Why would anyone want to bother with a commerical email carrier when they can just place the call themself? The reason for the existance of the net is that knowledgable people can cooperatively run a service alot more efficiently than a company that has to deal with alot of novice connections. This will always stay true. At the moment, the net has attempted to reach out to alot of unknowledgable users, just as unix has mistakenly been installed in alot of non-research environments. It is to be expected (and hoped) that we will eventually lose some of these fringe users to commercial houses that can better administer to their needs, but that should not be mistaken for the death of Usenet any more than the mouse was the death of the keyboard. ------ BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) p.s., anyone want to start a pool on whether it will be cheaper to use your acoustic modem on a voice grade connection or to pay for a digital connection once ISDN sets up?
casey@corwyn.cognet.ucla.edu (Casey Leedom) (06/17/88)
In article <Jun.13.22.27.58.1988.16396@athos.rutgers.edu> > webber@athos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: > > > In article <585@cbnews.ATT.COM> , mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) writes: > > Mail into and out of AT&T through the "att" gateway will continue. > > "att" is serving as a professionally run replacement for ihnp4 and > > cbosgd. > > Would it be accurate to say that att now views itself as a very big > leaf node? It will be interesting to see how the net deals with a > leaf that generates as much traffic as att. That's certainly what it seems they want to become. And while I feel the it is justifiable to be a leaf node if a node doesn't have a lot of resources (i.e. a recipient of net charity) and/or simply doesn't generate much in the way of network load, I can't see the justification for AT&T trying to become a giant leaf node. If AT&T feels that they are being over-burdened with third party mail traffic, etc. and also want to remain a cooperative member of the UUCP community, they should simply cut back their connections. With their current plan, it would be my suggestion that everyone uniformly disconnect from AT&T sites and force them to use uunet just like any other site that wants to be a leaf node. I'd also suggest that we ask AT&T for the licensing for their third party software filter, invert the test for AT&T sites and have everyone install it. Casey
ron@mucmot.UUCP (Ron Voss) (06/21/88)
In article <Jun.13.22.27.58.1988.16396@athos.rutgers.edu>, webber@athos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: [stuff deleted] > ... just as unix has mistakenly been installed in alot of > non-research environments. ... [stuff deleted] I bet there are least a few commercial environments which don't consider their unix installations to be mistakes. I "secretly" believe Bob to be a creation of a committee whose purpose is to liven up (generate?) net traffic. Probably a conspiracy of long- distance carriers. No single person could come up with so *many* tortured statements scattered in so *many* places throught the net. Another explanation would be that he is real, but an academic with no real experience. My apologies to the many thoughtful academics. Some of my best friends are academics. My best academic friend says his goal is to never have to work a day in his life. I'm just envious. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Ron Voss Motorola Microsystems Europe, Munich mcvax!unido!mucmot!ron CIS 73647,752 my opinions are just that, and not necessarily my employer's ------------------------------------------------------------
webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (06/23/88)
In article <317@mucmot.UUCP>, ron@mucmot.UUCP (Ron Voss) writes: > In article <Jun.13.22.27.58.1988.16396@athos.rutgers.edu>, webber@athos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: > > ... just as unix has mistakenly been installed in alot of > > non-research environments. ... > I bet there are least a few commercial environments which don't > consider their unix installations to be mistakes. That is not inconsistant with what I said. Even if the hypothetical commercial environments were non-research, it is still not inconsistant. > ... Another >explanation would be that he is real, but an academic with no real experience. Typical comment of a 9-to-5-er with no ``real'' experience. It is common for people who only have one experience repeated day-in/day-out over-and-over to think that that is the only experience there is and that people who lack that one have no experience at all. ----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)