allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/04/89)
I've a friend who is trying to send mail to a Bitnet user; unfortunately, the gateway I normally use (CUNYVM) isn't accepting his messages. Can someone please mail me a list of other UUCP/Internet gateways to Bitnet and the address styles they will accept? Thanks in advance, ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp, 161-7070 BALLBERY (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) Is that enough addresses for you? no? then: allbery@uunet.UU.NET (c.s.misc)
dave@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David A Rasmussen) (10/05/89)
From article <1989Oct3.234604.10248@NCoast.ORG>, by allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery): > I've a friend who is trying to send mail to a Bitnet user; unfortunately, the > gateway I normally use (CUNYVM) isn't accepting his messages. Can someone > please mail me a list of other UUCP/Internet gateways to Bitnet and the > address styles they will accept? > It was my understanding that one should send to site.bitnet@INTERBIT and someone somewhere would understand what INTERBIT was, which at that time was CYNYVM -- Internet:dave@uwm.edu, Uucp:uwm!dave, Bitnet:dave%uwm.edu@INTERBIT Bellnet: +1 (414) 229-5133, USnail: CSD, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/05/89)
Thanks for the responses, all; the best response I got was that uunet knows how to route to Bitnet, since it's more likely (IMHO) to remain stable (and if it doesn't, I assure you I'll be feeling it in more urgent areas than this!). ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp, 161-7070 BALLBERY (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) Is that enough addresses for you? no? then: allbery@uunet.UU.NET (c.s.misc)
wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) (10/05/89)
I remind the world once again that random use of uunet to route third-party mail is frowned upon. Internet-to-BITNET gateways, among others: cunyvm.cuny.edu, mitvma.mit.edu, jade.berkeley.edu. All take the same general address form, user%site.bitnet@gateway. For example, listserv%bitnic.bitnet@jade.berkeley.edu.
ndonald@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Nick Donaldson) (10/05/89)
There are actually several "interbit" type sites on Bitnet. For example,
in Canada, ours is at utorugw.bitnet. CUNYVM, CORNELLC are two that I
can think of in the States.
--
Nick Donaldson
Bitnet - Ndonald@UOFMCC or
NetNorth Domain-style - Ndonald@ccm.umanitoba.ca or
On our Unix box - Ndonald@ccu.umanitoba.caagnew@trwrc.RC.TRW.COM (Robert A. Agnew) (10/06/89)
In article <31716@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: > I remind the world once again that random use of uunet to route third-party > mail is frowned upon. > Should I frown when your uunet mail comes across to my internet?
wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) (10/07/89)
>Should I frown when your uunet mail comes across to my internet?
Once more, in English, please?
UUNET does not exist to route mail for the known universe. It exists to
provide bidirectional mail and news service to its customers. Any other
services provided (like, say, the devastatingly large anonymous FTP
area) are secondary. If they get in the way of UUNET's primary purpose,
they may go away.agnew@trwrc.RC.TRW.COM (Robert A. Agnew) (10/10/89)
In article <31774@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >>Should I frown when your uunet mail comes across to my internet? > >Once more, in English, please? OK -- I'll make it simple. When your users route to nodes in the usenet map, and my nodes are in the list, your mail gets routed to the next node via the quickest route, usually via internet. This takes hours or days off of delivery. If uucp users become so pesky, this service may go away. The concept of an internet was to be all networks seamlessly integrated. Folks at Berkeley ought to know that! Besides why do usenet people register in domain .COM. Why don't they register in domain .UUCP? This way we could filter out uu traffic altogether :-).
cyrill@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Cyro Lord) (10/10/89)
In article <31774@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >>Should I frown when your uunet mail comes across to my internet? >Once more, in English, please? >UUNET does not exist to route mail for the known universe. It exists to >provide bidirectional mail and news service to its customers. Any other >services provided (like, say, the devastatingly large anonymous FTP >area) are secondary. If they get in the way of UUNET's primary purpose, >they may go away. I don't understand what Bill's function is with 'uunet' and wish someone would tell me. As a dues paying member of 'USENIX', it seem to me that if 'uunet' can't provide both services to it's paying customers and the USENET at large, why did we start 'uunet' in the first place. As a down stream site, what does 'uunet' do for me that 'USENIX' should fund it in the first place unless the funds it makes do something for the member- ship that i'm not aware of at this time. As to the FTP area, that only works for internet sites which may or may not need this service from 'uunet' and excludes most uucp only sites from the same service of getting programs that are stored for downloading. -- Cyro Lord Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp. - DOMAIN cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com UUCP {ncar,nbires,boulder,isis}!scicom!cyrill Corn can't expect Justice from a court of chickens. (African Proverb)
wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) (10/10/89)
You seem to misunderstand. UUNET is not a network. It is not an interchangeable term for 'the UUCP network.' It is one specific machine performing one specific service. Routing mail through the Internet is another issue entirely (I'm for it). But the management of UUNET do not wish to handle mail from random machines around the world. It's their machine, and it's their choiuce to make.
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (10/10/89)
In article <31774@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >>Should I frown when your uunet mail comes across to my internet? >Once more, in English, please? >UUNET does not exist to route mail for the known universe. It exists to >provide bidirectional mail and news service to its customers. Any other >services provided (like, say, the devastatingly large anonymous FTP >area) are secondary. If they get in the way of UUNET's primary purpose, >they may go away. On 9 Oct 89 17:25:08 GMT, cyrill@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Cyro Lord) said: Cyro> I don't understand what Bill's function is with 'uunet' and wish Cyro> someone would tell me. As a dues paying member of 'USENIX', it seem Cyro> to me that if 'uunet' can't provide both services to it's paying Cyro> customers and the USENET at large, why did we start 'uunet' in the Cyro> first place. As a down stream site, what does 'uunet' do for me that Cyro> 'USENIX' should fund it in the first place unless the funds it makes Cyro> do something for the membership that i'm not aware of at this time. Cyro> As to the FTP area, that only works for internet sites which may or Cyro> may not need this service from 'uunet' and excludes most uucp only Cyro> sites from the same service of getting programs that are stored for Cyro> downloading. What 'bout me? I'm neither a paying customer of UUNET nor am I a USENIX member. But golleee it sure is so much easier to let them do the work than to actually *ask* someone or *look* for those durn gateways, it doesn't cost anything, right? I remember hearing some number such as $4000 (/mo or /yr I don't recall) being used by Rick Adams on the info-nets mailing list. TANSTAAFL, folks. TANSTAAFL. -- Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet> "Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."
rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams) (10/10/89)
As a dues paying member of Usenix, you are entitled to pay to use the Uunet service. You are also entitled to pay to use the service if you are a non dues paying member of Usenix (of which there are too many) or even if you are not a member of Usenix. You are not entitled to freeload, but currently, we chose to allow third party traffic and will probably continue to do so as long as the paying customers do not object. Note that declining to reject is quite a bit different than accepting (morally if not functionally). A Usenix member who had been paying attention would have known that UUNET legally separated from Usenix on 1/1/89 and that being a Usenix member was as relevant as being a member of the NRA when determining "rights" to use UUNET. However,... If Usenix were truly funding UUNET as you suggest, it would work out to about $5,000 per member for 1989. (As I recall, I'm only paying $40 for MY Usenix dues...) Fortunately, about 1000 sites are paying to use the service, so the direct cost to Usenix members is zero. (Thats calculated as $1,500,000/3,000 for those who question the $5,000. The 1.5 million is accurate. The 3,000 is a guess. The actual number is probably lower.) What Usenix DID do (for which many of us are very grateful) is risk Usenix money in starting the venture. UUNET has been self sufficient for just about 1 year now. Usenix is getting every cent of its startup capital repaid under a mutually agreed to payment schedule. It has been suggested that once per month, on a random day, uunet reject all third party traffic. The concept is similar to having to lock a gate on your property to prevent someone from claiming an adverse easement (i.e. since you didn't stop them, you have implicitly permitted them). I dont expect things to ever come to that, however, it is tempting... --rick
wcf@psuhcx.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) (10/11/89)
In article <587@trwrc.RC.TRW.COM> agnew@trwrc.UUCP (Robert A. Agnew) writes: |In article <31774@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: |>>Should I frown when your uunet mail comes across to my internet? |> |>Once more, in English, please? [nonsensical gobbeldygook deleted] |at Berkeley ought to know that! Besides why do usenet people register in |domain .COM. Why don't they register in domain .UUCP? This way we could filter |out uu traffic altogether :-). First thing is, 'usenet people' don't register in domain .COM because 'usenet people' are scattered all over different nets. If you modify your question to be what I assume you meant, "why do uucp people register in domain .COM?", it's because that's where they belong. Or if they register in domain .ORG, it's because that's where they belong. Or ... well, you get the picture. They don't register in domain .UUCP because it doesn't exist. Bill -- Bitnet: wcf@psuhcx.bitnet Bill Fenner | aaaaaaaaa Internet: wcf@hcx.psu.edu | r UUCP: {gatech,rutgers}!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf | g Fido: Sysop at 1:129/87 (814/238 9633) \hogbbs!wcf | h
clutx.clarkson.edu (Drew Derbyshire,,,9143397425) (10/14/89)
From article <31808@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, by wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner): > You seem to misunderstand. UUNET is not a network. It is not an > interchangeable term for 'the UUCP network.' It is one specific > machine performing one specific service. :soapbox. Well, then they should drop off the internet, or refuse to be added to the maps. Well connected systems which exist to perform mail delivery end up general gateways, unless they explicitly restrict mail delivery channels. My personal understanding of UUNET was that it was not limited to 'customers' but rather served as a not-for-profit backbone (along with other sites) for UUCP; like any good backbone, it is well connected and in a practical sense encourages good mail (i.e. by the fastest route). UUNET's offer of anonymous ftp service clearly strengthens this, if it wants to be known as UUCP host rather than a generic mail server, it should drop the internet oriented services. I LIKE UUNET the way it is. :Esoapbox. Drew Derbyshire Internet: ahd@clutx.clarkson.edu Voice: 914-339-7425 UUCP: ahd@kendra.wf.ags.com Snail mail: 578 Broadway, Apt 6 uunet!agsnjt!kendra!ahd Kingston, NY 12401
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (10/15/89)
From article <31808@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, by wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner): > You seem to misunderstand. UUNET is not a network. It is not an > interchangeable term for 'the UUCP network.' It is one specific > machine performing one specific service. On 14 Oct 89 14:39:03 GMT, ahd@image.soe!clutx.clarkson.edu (Drew Derbyshire,,,9143397425) said: Drew> :soapbox. Drew> Well, then they should drop off the internet, or refuse to be added to Drew> the maps. Well connected systems which exist to perform mail delivery Drew> end up general gateways, unless they explicitly restrict mail delivery Drew> channels. Which they have so far not done--not that they haven't thought of it, or been tempted to do it. Overuse of this sort of thing will probably cause them to start bouncing mail. [Disclaimer: I don't work there. I've never met anyone who works there personally. I *have* used their anonymous ftp service, at extremely off-peak hours...(college student hours, y'know :-) and I'm sure I've kicked a goodly number of Kbytes of postings into their newsfeeds. I'm sort of the anti-Sy Sperling of UUNET: "I'm not the President of the company--I'm not even a client."] Drew> My personal understanding of UUNET was that it was not limited to Drew> 'customers' but rather served as a not-for-profit backbone (along Drew> with other sites) for UUCP; like any good backbone, it is well Drew> connected and in a practical sense encourages good mail (i.e. by the Drew> fastest route). Drew> UUNET's offer of anonymous ftp service clearly strengthens this, if Drew> it wants to be known as UUCP host rather than a generic mail server, Drew> it should drop the internet oriented services. Given that they are already paying for the Internet connection ($4000/month) to improve service for their customers, their offering of ftp services and the like is reasonable (and much welcome, by me). Drew> I LIKE UUNET the way it is. Agreed. Let's help keep it this way by not sending all our mail that's "too hard to route" to them. Drew> :Esoapbox. Drew> Drew Derbyshire -- Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet> "Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."