ckd%bu-pub.BU.EDU@bu-it.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) (11/18/89)
>>>>> On 17 Nov 89 20:53:42 GMT, dmr@csli.stanford.edu (Daniel M. >>>>> Rosenberg) said: Daniel> X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 518, message 2 of 11 Daniel> I'd expect you could bounce this off of uunet: e.g., attmail!wcseal@ Daniel> uunet.uu.net. Daniel> So, with that answer, I have a question: just who the heck is UUNET Daniel> and why do they let us bounce all our mail off of them? DISCLAIMERS: This is from memory. I have no affiliation with UUNET. UUNET is a not-for-profit company that supplies forwarding service for UUCP mail and news to their customers. As part of that, they have hellishly well-maintained mailers, and can often get through when you (generic, plural you) can't. This has led many people to use them as the "smart bomb" of mail routing problems. Unfortunately, this costs them. And, more than once, they've been tempted to just start bouncing anything that's not for one of their customers (the same way AT&T does, which is why Daniel suggested using UUNET in the first place [!]). Basically, they let us bounce mail off of them because it hasn't cost them "too much" yet. May I make a plea to all TELECOM Digest (and comp.dcom.telecom) readers not to use UUNET as the "magic solution" -- but to do a bit of research and get the approved mail-exchangers or mail paths? Hint: Either use nslookup or mail to the SH.CS.NET info-server to get the proper Internet MX records. I'm willing to help folks try to iron out mail problems if it'll take some load off UUNET. [Responses to me, please--this has gone fairly far out of the TELECOM topic. --ckd]
psrc@pegasus.att.com (Paul S. R. Chisholm) (11/29/89)
*sigh* Does anyone want to compile a list of "Frequently asked Telecom Digest questions"? In article <telecom-v09i0517m06@vector.dallas.tx.us>, UCHUCK@unc.bitnet (Chuck Bennett 919-966-1134) writes: > I have an aquaintance who works at the Shreveport, LA AT&T location. > When we met (in person), he gave me the following email address: > "attmail!sp3ba!wcseal". As you can see, I am on BITNET. I also have > INTERNET access. Is there a way to get a message to him? First off, not all AT&T e-mail is AT&T Mail. Try wcseal@sp3ba.att.com; it may not work ("sp3ba" sounds like a 3B2, a small system, and may be in a subdomain), but it's the logical thing to try. Now for the recitation-of-the-month: AT&T Mail is a commercial e-mail service. There is *no* gateway between the AT&T Mail service and the Internet. It's not a technical problem (AT&T Mail talks uucp, and so do several gateways), but a billing question. Any system that acted as a gateway would be billed by AT&T Mail for all messages it passed on, and of course wouldn't have reliable way of passing the bills along to the systems it served; as a result, no one wants to be a gateway. (The same logic applies to Bitnet et al.) Yes, it would be nice if there was a gateway. Yes, there are gateways to MCI Mail and CompuServe. I know it. AT&T Mail management knows it. As of right now, there isn't one. This is going to sound silly, but . . . Every time I post a message along these lines, I get about half a dozen polite replies, saying, "Thank you very much for your informative article. I read it carefully, and with great interest. Can you tell me how I can get from the Internet to AT&T Mail?" You can't, okay? On 17 Nov 89 20:53:42 GMT, dmr@csli.stanford.edu (Daniel M. Rosenberg) said: > I'd expect you could bounce this off of uunet: e.g., attmail!wcseal@ > uunet.uu.net. (BTW, there is no !wcseal account on AT&T Mail.) In article <telecom-v09i0521m02@vector.dallas.tx.us>, ckd%bu-pub.BU.EDU@ bu-it.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) writes: > UUNET is a not-for-profit company that supplies forwarding service for > UUCP mail and news to their customers. As I've mentioned in several previous articles (including one recent one), if uunet forwarded messages to the AT&T Mail service, AT&T (which is a for-profit company) would bill uunet. uunet could bill *its* direct customers; but if they were passing traffic through from elsewhere, who could *they* bill? I've talked with Rick Adams (postmaster@uunet), and with AT&T Mail management, about this. Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. [Moderator's Note: Sorry, but I have to differ with you on the 'no gateway to attmail' statement. TELECOM Digest is sent to a few people who recieve it in their attmail boxes at their request. I send control copies of the Digest to my own attmail box from time to time to test the link. And what about inbound telex to attmail? Who pays for that? What about inbound to attmail from Telemail, or FAX? I think the main complaint of attmail managment was people who were inbound to them and using premium services outbound, like people who would write to !telex and leave attmail with no one at the gateway to bill. PT]
"Fred E.J. Linton" <FLINTON@eagle.wesleyan.edu> (12/05/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0542m05@chinacat.lonestar.org>, psrc@pegasus.att.com (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: > ... recitation-of-the-month: AT&T Mail is a commercial e-mail service. > There is *no* gateway between the AT&T Mail service and the Internet. > This seems to be quite correct -- except -- that most of the well- connected Unix systems "registered" with AT&T Mail seem willing to overlook another AT&T Mail subscriber's _occasionally_ sending through them FROM his own AT&T Mail account TO an Internet/Bitnet/Usenet/etc.-net destination. Not so, however, for mail ORIGINATING somewhere else and destined for you on your AT&T Mail account (except in flukey cases, where the postmaster isn't aware of how his machine is getting mugged, or doesn't know how to stop it): > It's not a technical problem (AT&T Mail talks uucp, and so > do several gateways), but a billing question. Any system that acted > as a gateway would be billed by AT&T Mail for all messages it passed > on, and of course wouldn't have reliable way of passing the bills along > along to the systems it served; as a result, no one wants to be a gateway. Indeed, I once found (briefly) a seeming Internet-to-attmail gateway -- very soon I had "cease-and desist" mail from its postmaster, with whom (since I hadn't cost him more than 85 cents, in fact) I quickly was able to make peace; shortly thereafter, he had a patch on his mailer rejecting third-party attmail-bound traffic through his machine. Many sites spring to mind -- cbosgd and athq03, among others -- who are no longer even on attmail because of the expense of forwarding in this way, or who -- like uunet, seismo, ihnp4 -- just blankly refuse to forward into attmail except for their own local users. > Yes, it would be nice if there was a gateway. Yes, there are gateways > to MCI Mail and CompuServe. I know it. AT&T Mail management knows > it. As of right now, there isn't one. Gentle pressure on the AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center reps at +1 800 624 5672 may, in time, cause AT&T Mail management to realize that permitting inbound mail at no charge to the site last handling it before it arrives in attmail can only be _good_ for business -- a fact MCI Mail and C'Serve have already realized (and _that_ fact may help convince AT&T Mail!). > ... get from the Internet to AT&T Mail? You can't, okay? You can however make yourself a little switch box that will connect in "triangle-routing" fashion your keyboard to your mainframe's data-in line, your mainframe's data-out line (normally to your CRT) to a modem TxD line, and the modem's RxD line to your CRT, and in this way, on the line with AT&T Mail, you can transfer to your AT&T Mail account, for further processing, anything that reached you from Internet; similarly, by reversing the triangle, you can download from your attmail account and into your mainframe account and thence onwards into the Internet whatever has arrived there. (I made myself such a box using a couple of 4P2T switches -- totally hassle-free.) As to how the Moderator finds his way into AT&T Mail accounts, I'd be curious to know -- perhaps the attmail recipients have an agreement with the gatewaying machine to reimburse expenses, or the gatewaying machines haven't yet realized they're being taken advantage of, or... > [Moderator's Note: Sorry, but I have to differ with you > on the 'no gateway to attmail' statement. TELECOM Digest is sent to > a few people who recieve it in their attmail boxes at their request. > I send control copies of the Digest to my own attmail box from time > to time to test the link. ... or maybe they'll just up and plug the leak, with no warning, and no bounce report... (-: ? Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06457 ARPA/Internet: FLINTON@eagle.Wesleyan.EDU (preferred) Bitnet: FLINTON%eagle@WESLEYAN[.bitnet] (also works) from uucp: ...!{research, mtune!arpa, uunet}!eagle.Wesleyan.EDU!FLinton on ATT-Mail: !fejlinton ( ...!attmail!fejlinton ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) OR + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) Telex: <USA> + 15 122 3413 FEJLINTON CompuServe ID: 72037,1054 ( OR, maybe: 72037.1054@CompuServe.COM ) F-Net (guest): linton@inria.inria.fr OR ...!inria.inria.fr!linton [Moderator's Note: Well, if that occurs, then those users will need to supply me with some other address. It would be a shame. PT]