reid@decwrl.dec.com (Brian Reid) (07/15/88)
In article <119@carpet.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >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 don't want to venture an opinion on the ATT third-party mail issue, but I feel safe offering a fact. DEC has never, to my knowledge, treated third-pary mail any differently from any other kind of mail. I can believe that there may have been occasional bugs in our mail relays that caused some mail to get bounced, but our policy is that if we connect to uucp, then we connect 100% and we handle everything that is sent our way. More than half of the mail handled by decwrl in the last year has been third-pary mail. One thing that we do, however, is limit the number of contact points between the DEC network and the uucp world. DEC's network has more than 32,000 nodes on it. There are 2 registered gateways to uucp, decwrl and decuac. There are a couple of unregistered gateways also. But mostly we like all of the mail for dec to go through one or two gateways, so we can watch it and manage it. Non-disclaimer: in this instance I am actually speaking for DEC. Well, we're supposed to call it Digital, so I am actually speaking for Digital. Brian Reid DEC Western Research
bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (07/15/88)
In article <599@bacchus.DEC.COM> reid@decwrl.UUCP (Brian Reid) writes: >In article <119@carpet.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >>It's not without precedent, DEC does restrict third party mail, IBM never [ I claimed it does, Brian says it doesn't. I can't say with authority (like I did in the original article) that it doesn't, I must defer to what Brian says. I can, with authority, say that I have tried, several times, to get mail through Digital sites to non-Digital sites and had it bounce back. The sites with which I have had the experience are decwrl (Brian's site), decuac, and decvax. That was the basis for my claim. ] >I don't want to venture an opinion on the ATT third-party mail issue, but I >feel safe offering a fact. DEC has never, to my knowledge, treated third-pary >mail any differently from any other kind of mail. I can believe that there >may have been occasional bugs in our mail relays that caused some mail to get >bounced, but our policy is that if we connect to uucp, then we connect 100% >and we handle everything that is sent our way. More than half of the mail >handled by decwrl in the last year has been third-pary mail. I have had the good fortune to be in the room with decwrl and I have seen a dedicated vax. It's impressive! I must agree with Brian that the Digital net could not keep that Vax as busy as it is, so it must handle a lot of third party mail. >One thing that we do, however, is limit the number of contact points between >the DEC network and the uucp world. DEC's network has more than 32,000 nodes >on it. There are 2 registered gateways to uucp, decwrl and decuac. There are >a couple of unregistered gateways also. But mostly we like all of the mail >for dec to go through one or two gateways, so we can watch it and manage it. Then I ask, humbly, why I can not get mail through decwrl to the Colorado Springs Digital office, further, why I can not reach a non-Digital site that is listed in decwrl's map? Please try, from decwrl, pete@tsc.DEC.COM, I am quite sure that it's among the 32,000 nodes on the Digital network. If it works, please explain how to address from outside the Digital network and I'll shut up. I'm not trying to be a nuisance, but I am trying to get clear on this. If it's "mailer bugs", so be it. >Non-disclaimer: in this instance I am actually speaking for DEC. Well, we're >supposed to call it Digital, so I am actually speaking for Digital. I want to correct a misconception that I created with my own poor choice of words. In my followup I said that ssbn was "ready" for AT&T to pull the plug on ssbn's att account. What I should have said was "ssbn has an att account and is prepared to do something else if att should decide to terminate it". I misled some people into thinking that ssbn was under some threat to dis- connect, not so. If AT&T decides to withdraw the courtesy then ssbn is "prepared", not "ready" for that. > >Brian Reid >DEC Western Research -- Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Usenet: { killer | att | rutgers | uunet!bigtex }!ssbn!bill