james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) (08/25/88)
I have a number of problems with the blatant and unnecessary commercialization of uucp domains by the UUCP Project. This commercialization is unnecessary and detrimental to usenet and the desirable goal of domainization. I argue that we would all be better off if the UUCP Project would fold up shop and go away as a pay service. People have been beating around the bush for too long on this. The uucp maps are too big. The u. files should be removed in favor of d. files, which will be strictly registered sites. This is an irrational idea. If the UUCP Project charges its customers to be listed, comp.mail.uucp becomes a purely commercial venture by the UUCP Project. No such commercialism has been permitted on usenet in the past. Indeed, rules on the Internet would seem to forbid nntp on this newsgroup precisely because it would be solely a commercial venture, to the real benefit of the paying customers only. My assumption is that most people are just ignoring this proposal as utter nonsense, knowing it can never happen. If any serious attempt to remove u. files was made, I except alt.maps would pop into creation and comp.mail.uucp would gradually fade away as fewer sites carried it. Clearly something should be done about the maps, but this idea won't work. At best, it would replace current problems with the u. files with the SAME problems in d. files - no net improvement at all. Domain names are better than simple uucp names for mail, and we need an organization to encourage this. Well, I won't argue with this. There are still MX-ignorant Internet sites out there and people running the old V7 unix mailers (still with us in SysV), but they will upgrade as their mail gradually ceases to work. But no argument that suggests that domains are a good thing requires that an exclusive, for-profit service like the UUCP Project needs to exist (I say exclusive because it does not deal with organizations that cannot get funding for this sort of thing - for-profit is dealt with below). Similarly, I cannot agree that it would not be impossible for a non-profit group to serve the same function. Within the confines of the current map distribution system, the *volunteer* map coordinators do a good job with the u.* files. How is it that the UUCP Project cannot do the easier job with the d.* files without being paid? There are fewer sites in the d.* files: it IS an easier job. Is volunteerism dead in usenet, or just the UUCP Project? The UUCP Project is non-profit and it encourages domainization of uucp-only sites. The question of where the money goes will probably never be adequately answered. The UUCP Project does not pay the NIC and does not pay the Internet site that acts as forwarder and nameserver. They incur no necessary hard costs that I am aware of. Soft costs such as keeping records and sending test mail once a year do not cost $150. The UUCP Project also wants money on a per-site basis for sites under its customer's domain. Why? Any extra money they receive from customer domains with many hosts is pure profit, representing no additional cost. Without some reasonably detailed explanation of where $150 goes, I cannot help but conclude that it isn't justified by the hard costs and does constitute some form of "profit" by usenet standards. It certainly qualifies as a commercial service. How does the UUCP Project encourage domainization? I do not think it does. A major problem is the large number of leaf sites and small PCs running unix or Xenix. These sites are generally not going to pay $150 without a tangible benefit, and there are other sites that cannot get funding for subscription services of this sort. The fee discourages precisely these sites from registering for a domain name. Removing the u. files so that these people will have a tangible benefit to pay $150 seems completely outrageous: I don't think anyone will put up with it. Getting a domain can be done if you have a cooperative Internet site. It cannot really be done without an Internet site. The UUCP Project cannot solve this inherent problem, and does not attempt to do so insofar as I can see. Exactly what *does* the Project do? If they simply handed out NIC registration forms, I suspect their customers could handle it all for themselves with the cooperation of the Internet site the customer is going to have to deal with anyway. The main reason bigtex is not currently in any domain is that the information on how to get a domain has not been widely available: everyone seems willing to put you under their control but not so excited about giving out the information on how to contact the NIC and the toplevel ".org" servers and such. If something is broke, it's our responsibility to track it down and have it fixed. This quote from Tim Thompson makes no sense to me, as there's nothing Tim can do if my forwarder breaks. If the Internet administrator won't fix it for me, he won't fix it for Tim. What kind of warranty are they placing on their services? If they don't control the "something", how do they fix it? "I'm from the UUCP Project, and your sendmail.cf is broken" isn't something I can't do myself... --- I suggest that a *volunteer* group whose purpose is to disseminate information would be more valuable that the UUCP Project. Rather than simply suggest "Send $xxx to us and we'll tell you what to do", this group could maintain lists of known cooperative Internet hosts and existing domains that sites could join. The group could hand out information on how to interact with the NIC and how to find Internet forwarders. Basically, it would work just as the uucp maps work now - new sites are encouraged, but not strictly required, to register in the uucp maps. Since there is no cost, most do so. Such a group would also avoid the suspicions that the UUCP Project has caused, and would avoid the important commercialization problems. Some of this is already done on an informal basis, and I see .US as a step in the right direction, though I don't care for their central authority model or the fact that they permit domain names but not domains. I'm sure the UUCP Project people see themselves as volunteering immense amounts of effort for a pitiful return, and probably will not be pleased with me. But the fact is that there are just too many unanswered questions, and too many rumors flying about. I expect that some of my conclusions above are based on incorrect information - I don't know anything about how Internet domains work administratively. But these concerns need to be answered, not avoided. Heretofore I've seen only vague claims that paperwork is handled, and things are arranged, and that somehow it all costs money. I would like to hear why the volunteer effort doesn't work, and why the UUCP Project really does solve problems that cannot otherwise be solved via the traditional usenet volunteer effort. -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (08/25/88)
In comp.mail.uucp (<6858@bigtex.uucp>), james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) writes:
=I have a number of problems with the blatant and unnecessary
=commercialization of uucp domains by the UUCP Project. This
=commercialization is unnecessary and detrimental to usenet and the
=desirable goal of domainization. I argue that we would all be better
=off if the UUCP Project would fold up shop and go away as a pay
=service.
Have you been charged, yet, a fee you consider unreasonable?
If not, then why advocate the overthrow of something that basically,
so far, works?
/rich $alz
--
Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (08/25/88)
I would have answered your message, against my better judgement, but your own words explain why I shouldn't waste my time: > I expect that some of my conclusions above are based on incorrect > information - I don't know anything about how Internet domains work > administratively. But these concerns need to be answered, not > avoided. Please! Let's not confuse the issues with FACTS!!!!!!!! -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (08/25/88)
In comp.mail.uucp (<6858@bigtex.uucp>), james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) writes: >=I have a number of problems with the blatant and unnecessary >=commercialization of uucp domains by the UUCP Project. In article <1031@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >Have you been charged, yet, a fee you consider unreasonable? Yes. I was recently billed $150 for the second year of the .epi.com domain. >If not, then why advocate the overthrow of something that basically, >so far, works? I had a hell of a time justifying the payment to the accounting department, which rightly wants to pinch every penny because we're a small company just getting out of the startup phase (or trying to). The statements I made were of questionable validity and I won't be out of integrity again that way, because I concentrated on the benefits of having a registered domain and left the impression that our domain would go away if we didn't pay. How do you answer your accounting department when they ask the question, "What are the consequences if we don't make this payment?" (for renewal payments, not the first payment). Consider: 1. The UUCP Project provides no services to us in exchange for the money in the second year. Any map updates that are performed are done for us by Erik Fair (who does Northern California) on a volunteer basis; none of the $150 goes to him. 2. We pay uunet to be our Internet forwarder. We are happy with our service from them, and they will remain as our Internet forwarder even if the UUCP Gang deletes our map entry. If our map entry is deleted, we will still get mail via the Internet and uunet with little delay; our neighbors will suffer a bit with longer paths. (By the way, the people on the Internet who complain because their domains aren't in the d.* files shouldn't. Mail will get to them faster through the top-level .com, .edu, and .org servers). 3. The UUCP Project has no power to delete our domain. It's registered with SRI-NIC. 4. If the UUCP Project starts removing sites and organizations from the maps, (for example, if they get rid of the u.* maps or attempt to charge). 5. I've never seen any justification for the UUCP Project's expenses. The only things I can think of that would make a dent in that kind of money are: a) Their own computer: totally unnecessary, if you need disk space ask for room on uunet, which stores the maps in downloadable form anyway, b) Paid staff: again unnecessary; if the load is too tough on the current crew ask for more volunteers (I'd be willing to pitch in), c) Travel expenses: this would be a real outrage if we're paying for this. A one-time fee for the service of setting up the domain is perfectly appropriate. Continuing fees are NOT. In conclusion, I'll recommend that my company not pay any more $150 fees unless I can get a very strong justification why we should, and I'll fight any attempt at coercion. -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,pyramid,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck jbuck@epimass.epi.com Old Arpa mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net If you leave your fate in the hands of the gods, don't be surprised if they have a few grins at your expense. - Tom Robbins
vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) (08/26/88)
3 of 5.
In article <2423@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes:
# 3. The UUCP Project has no power to delete our domain. It's
# registered with SRI-NIC.
Tell the UUCP Project to move you to the u.* files and stop paying them.
They aren't trying to lock you into their services; if they don't have to
keep track of you other than to process updates for your u.* entry, they
have no reason to charge you.
As you say, the NIC knows you now, and you've got your MX pointing at uunet.
You may have to move your core NS to point at uunet, it presently points at:
RUTGERS.EDU
AOS.BRL.MIL
HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU
So what you need is a core NS pointing to uunet, and an MX on uunet pointing
to uunet. Rick Adams will be happy to help you out, I'm sure.
--
Paul Vixie
Digital Equipment Corporation Work: vixie@dec.com Play: paul@vixie.UUCP
Western Research Laboratory uunet!decwrl!vixie uunet!vixie!paul
Palo Alto, California, USA +1 415 853 6600 +1 415 864 7013ahby@com2sun.ETA.COM (Shane P. McCarron) (08/26/88)
In article <2423@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >In article <1031@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >>Have you been charged, yet, a fee you consider unreasonable? > >Yes. I was recently billed $150 for the second year of the .epi.com >domain. Yes. I was also billed for another year, but since I had discovered some time before that that the UUCP Project incurred no on-going (or even initial) expenses on my behalf, I ignored it! >How do you answer your accounting department when they ask the >question, "What are the consequences if we don't make this payment?" >(for renewal payments, not the first payment). I thought about this, and have determined that there are no consequences. The maps are really coordinated by the regional coordinators. I know that there is some sort of "central authority", but this group is only as good as the people "under" it think it is. I would assume that the coordinators will do what logic dictates. For example, if your regions central site refuses to pay their fee, and the Project people say "throw the bums out - theya re not paying", the coordinator is going to say "Look, this site is vital to my region, and if I drop them every thing will break. Forget it!" [[He then goes on to make many excellent points]] >5. I've never seen any justification for the UUCP Project's expenses. >The only things I can think of that would make a dent in that kind of >money are: > > a) Their own computer: totally unnecessary, if you need disk > space ask for room on uunet, which stores the maps in > downloadable form anyway, They have a machine, stargate. I get the impression it is something small that is at Mark's house. I could be wrong. > b) Paid staff: again unnecessary; if the load is too tough on > the current crew ask for more volunteers (I'd be willing to pitch > in), As would I and a number of other people. The volunteer system is what this entire project is based upon anyway! The "central authority" does very little actual work, as far as I can tell. > c) Travel expenses: this would be a real outrage if we're paying > for this. Heh... I heard a rumor (this is certainly libelous) that they were using the money to go to Usenix conferences :-) Not true of course, but humorous, none the less. >A one-time fee for the service of setting up the domain is perfectly >appropriate. Continuing fees are NOT. I agree, but would also like to point out that there are plenty of people who are willing to do what they UUCP Project does FOR FREE. There are people who consider it their duty(?) to help out fellow members of this community in small ways that do not cost them much in time or materials. This is the "spirit of the net", and I applaud it whole-heartedly. >In conclusion, I'll recommend that my company not pay any more $150 >fees unless I can get a very strong justification why we should, and >I'll fight any attempt at coercion. Well said! We are, after all, fighting for the users :-) Shane P. McCarron ATT: +1 612 452-9522 Project Manager UUCP: ahby@c2s.mn.org