peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/27/90)
In article <BOB.90Jun26171239@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: > If the transport mechanisms > are all on zero-incremental-cost-per-use networks, all is well... You forgot one very large case: UUNET customers. We pay for the incremental cost of moving that Chunk Of Stuff ourselves. Why should we have to switch to an even more expensive transport mechanism? Yes, anonymous UUCP is more expensive, just from the time needed for the local system admin folks to set up and debug each individual link... if you guys offering anonymous UUCP would standardise your chat scripts it'd probably be a different matter. Now if UUNET were to provide a method of doing anonymous FTP to their customers directly, you'd have a case. But they don't, so we need our mail servers. The irony is that it's us UUNET customers that are likely the main store and forward sites you're trying to protect. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu (06/28/90)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com writes:
Why should we have to switch to an even more expensive transport mechanism?
Because MBASes inflict their costs on a blortful of unsuspecting good
neighbors. The person who wants the stuff ought to be the one who
pays for it.
If you guys offering anonymous UUCP would standardise your chat
scripts it'd probably be a different matter.
That'll be darn near impossible. Around here, most people get into
osu-cis via a Micom port selector that can be kindly described as
temperamental, at least in conjunction with the varying UUCP flavors
out there. Common suggestion to people having trouble is to dial the
Micom a couple of times by hand to see what the timing looks like at
their end. Direct dial-ins to our machines are scarce, and you might
be surprised by the number of people who are truly clueless on how to
deal with a chat script of _any_ kind -- "standardization" would not
help. (E.g., "What is `\c' by itself supposed to do?" Well, duh, it
means "do nothing." I would think people setting up UUCP links would
know that. A lot don't seem to.)
The irony is that it's us UUNET customers that are likely the main store
and forward sites you're trying to protect.
Not based on the source of most requests I've seen to set up
mail-based service to osu-cis' archives -- I get a couple each month.
Few such requests arrive by paths which have any reference to uunet in
them.
In the month of May, (the apparent) osu-cis serviced total Uanon
connect time of 24 days 13:11 (107,351 minutes). That's more than 3/4
duty cycle of at least one Uanon at all times. I think that there's
rather a lot of somebodies out there who think that access to such an
archive is worth the cost. The fact that uunet started such access
(via the 1-900-GOT-SRCS route) tends to support that view. As I type
this, osu-cis is shoveling bits at 9 sites, 5 news/mail neighbors and
4 Uanon users -- that is to say, his lines are maxed out (there are 7
lines otherwise occupied, or dead).
--karl
--
Depression \di-'presh-un\ n. A condition observed on return from
3 weeks' vacation to find ~2000 mail messages waiting for oneself.emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (06/28/90)
In article <KY940U6@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
Now if UUNET were to provide a method of doing anonymous FTP to their
customers directly, you'd have a case. But they don't, so we need our
mail servers.
They are, it's called "alternet". I haven't seen the glossies, so I
don't know what they are charging, but I'm pretty sure it'd be
competetive. It had better be competetive cause PSI is selling more
or less the same thing, commercial access to the internet.
there's a mailing list on this, requests to com-priv-request@psi.com.
--Ed
Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept <emv@math.lsa.umich.edu>
comp.archives moderatorpeter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/28/90)
In article <EMV.90Jun27143002@urania.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: > In article <KY940U6@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > Now if UUNET were to provide a method of doing anonymous FTP to their > customers directly, you'd have a case. But they don't, so we need our > mail servers. > They are, it's called "alternet". Alternet is a commercial TCP/IP service. What I'm talking about is a uucp to ftp gateway for UUNET customers, like what PUCC provides but without the bitnet hassles. It's as different as road and rail. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/29/90)
First of all, I didn't mean to imply that Anonymous UUCP was a bad thing, or intend to denigrate your service. It's just frustrating having this little peephole into the internet, and then have folks running Anonymous UUCP sites trying to convince people to shut that peephole down further. Both mailservers and anonymous UUCP have their place. In article <KARL.90Jun27154519@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: > peter@ficc.ferranti.com writes: > Why should we have to switch to an even more expensive transport mechanism? > Because MBASes inflict their costs on a blortful of unsuspecting good > neighbors. The person who wants the stuff ought to be the one who > pays for it. That's us, or any UUNET customer. If we get it via a mail server, we're paying for it. What I really really would like to see is UUNET providing an RFTP service: uux - uunet\!rftp ~uucp/receive/peter OPEN archive.big-university.edu CD ~ftp/comp-sources-intel GET plmlib/Part01 plmlib.1 GET plmlib/Part02 plmlib.2 GET plmlib/Part03 plmlib.3 CLOSE QUIT But since they don't, a mail-server is the next best bet. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
AMillar@cup.portal.com (Alan DI Millar) (06/29/90)
>> Now if UUNET were to provide a method of doing anonymous FTP to their >> customers directly, you'd have a case. But they don't, so we need our >> mail servers. > >> They are, it's called "alternet". > >Alternet is a commercial TCP/IP service. What I'm talking about is a uucp >to ftp gateway for UUNET customers, like what PUCC provides but without the >bitnet hassles. It's as different as road and rail. What bitnet hassles? I send a mail message to BITFTP@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU from any UUCP site, type in the EXACT ftp dialog I would interactively, and I get my response back uuencoded. How could it be easier? I guess you could drop the uuencoding and/or put it in a shar file, but that's about it... I personally find BITFTP easier than anonymous uucp. The only thing that could be better would be fully interactive access, and you won't find that in the uucp store-and-forward world, I'm sure. I'm sure there are ways it could be easier, but I'm still trying to figure out how everyone got by before BITFTP :-) - Alan Millar AMillar@cup.portal.com
steve@thelake.mn.org (Steve Yelvington) (06/30/90)
[In article <Q:A4=63@xds13.ferranti.com>,
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes ... ]
> What I really really would like to see is UUNET providing an RFTP service:
>
> uux - uunet\!rftp ~uucp/receive/peter
> OPEN archive.big-university.edu
> CD ~ftp/comp-sources-intel
> GET plmlib/Part01 plmlib.1
> GET plmlib/Part02 plmlib.2
> GET plmlib/Part03 plmlib.3
> CLOSE
> QUIT
>
> But since they don't, a mail-server is the next best bet.
I ran across a reference to FTP-by-mail the other day and sent off a help
query. This is what I got:
Request: info
Topic: help-ftp
Document Updated: 11 May 90
Subject: CSNET EMAIL-FTP V.2 SERVICE DOWN FOR REPAIRS
******************************************************************************
CSNET Coordination and Information Center (CIC) Hotline: 617/873-2777
10 Moulton Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 Email: cic@sh.cs.net
Info-Server requests to: info-server@sh.cs.net
******************************************************************************
CSNET EMAIL-FTP V.2 SERVICE DOWN FOR REPAIRS
CSNET EMAIL-FTP V.2 was installed on 17 Apr 90 and announced in
CSNET-FORUM on 18 Apr 90. The announcement was immediately copied to
INFO-NETS, and the EMAIL-FTP service was immediately subjected to use
by the CSNET and INFO-NETS communities. Version 2 of the EMAIL-FTP
service was advertised as being less susceptible than Version 1 to
errors caused by timing out at the remote host. This proved to be
correct, but the 1055 email-ftp requests that were processed between
18 Apr and 10 May turned up other problems that could not be fixed on
the fly. We have therefore decided to take down the email-ftp service
temporarily for repairs and testing.
When the service is resumed, we will make an announcement in
CSNET-FORUM, on INFO-NETS, and in the HELP document for the CSNET
Info-Server.
For the latest news about EMAIL-FTP, send a message to
info-server@sh.cs.net with the following text in the body of the
message:
REQUEST: INFO
TOPIC: HELP-FTP
REQUEST: END
Please send questions, etc., to "cic@sh.cs.net".
CSNET STAFF
--
Steve Yelvington at the lake in Minnesota
steve@thelake.mn.orgamanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (06/30/90)
In article <Q:A4=63@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > What I really really would like to see is UUNET providing an RFTP service: It's not autmated, but they do seem perfectly happy to FTP things and queue them up to customers via UUCP. We've done it a couple of times... -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/30/90)
Yes, I know about mail-ftp servers. They have the same advantages and disadvantages as plain mailservers... remember, this discussion is over the propriety of mailservers in the first place. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/02/90)
In article <31255@cup.portal.com> AMillar@cup.portal.com (Alan DI Millar) writes: > What bitnet hassles? Occasional munged files, perhaps due to EBCDIC corruption. In any case, I occasionally have to try a couple of times to get it right. UUCPing stuff from UUNET never causes that sort of problem. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>