sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber) (11/18/85)
Lauren, I (and I think the rest of the non-ARPA sites) would love to
see a copy of these rules. Can you point to the appropriate RFC or
whatever that we can get from SRI-NIC? Or, better yet, can you
cite (i.e. quote) these rules right here in net.news (yes, this
is net.news.adm, but follow-ups are pointed at net.news).
This information isn't restricted, is it?
Or the arguement of appropriate use of ARPANET vs material on usenet,
I must concur that many of the "flame-oriented" news groups are
probably inappropriate. However, I do notice that most (if not
all) the mod groups originate in ARPA-land. Given that, could the
ARPANET be used to transport that group from backbone to backbone?
I also note in the ARPANET list of lists that there are recreational
oriented groups like SF-Lovers, RAILROAD, CUBE-LOVERS, and so on.
Even a few OPINION groups are to be found: ARMS-D, POLI-SCI
and so on. I think your estimate of 90% might have been a bit high, don't you?
In fact, it is not clear to me that some sites do not ALREADY employ
this method of distributing news via TCP-UUCP.
--
Stan uucp:{ihnp4!shell,rice}!neuro1!sob Opinions expressed
Olan ARPA:sob@rice.arpa here are ONLY mine &
Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)660-9262 noone else's.ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/18/85)
> Lauren, I (and I think the rest of the non-ARPA sites) would love to > see a copy of these rules. Can you point to the appropriate RFC or > whatever that we can get from SRI-NIC? Or, better yet, can you > cite (i.e. quote) these rules right here in net.news (yes, this > is net.news.adm, but follow-ups are pointed at net.news). > This information isn't restricted, is it? > There is a statement about the official use of the ARPANET that is very broad (fortunately) which allows certain of the not quite official content traffic that exists on ARPANET. It's in my manual in my office so I can't quote it, but it really doesn't quite make any difference. ARPANET traffic is restricted to official government traffic and traffic in support of the ARPANET charter. Since ARPANET is an experiment in networking, it could mean almost anything. Many moderators prefer to take a conservative view on what is allowed because they don't wish to be bounced off the net (or as is more likely to happen, incur the rath of their host sponsor and get kicked off the machine being used for the mailing list). > Or the arguement of appropriate use of ARPANET vs material on usenet, > I must concur that many of the "flame-oriented" news groups are > probably inappropriate. However, I do notice that most (if not > all) the mod groups originate in ARPA-land. Given that, could the > ARPANET be used to transport that group from backbone to backbone? Not all mod groups are ARPA-originated, but it is pretty much the case that all ARPA-originated lists are MOD lists. This is because of inadequacies in the old fa.* distribution lists. You can't use ARPANET as a common carrier to transfer between two sites on the net just to circumvent the phone charges. It would be possible to provide multiple insertion points into the USENET for traffic originating in ARPA, but this requires a little more cooperation between the ARPA sites. Erik Fair is actively working to accomplish this though. > In fact, it is not clear to me that some sites do not ALREADY employ > this method of distributing news via TCP-UUCP. BRL-TGR, BRL-SEM, and NLM-MCS are USENET machines that have no UUCP on them at all. We obtain the traffic using some shell scripts and the Berkeley RSH utility. We can do this because it has been stated that we should use DDN (thats what they call MILNET and it's connected networks, commonly called ARPANET) rather than leased lines or even dial up modems. Given two MILNET sites who wish to play backbone, they could get away with using the MILNET as the transport medium. The hard part is convincing a government site that it is in their best interest to be a part of the backbone. -Ron
ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (11/20/85)
In article <674@neuro1.UUCP> sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes: ... >..could the ARPANET be used to transport that group from backbone to >backbone? This is being worked on, according to fair@berkeley. He'd like to support distribution via various sites that are on ARPA and uucp, such as seismo, berkeley, ut-something-or-other, and so on. I believe that everything comes from berkeley right now. - Ralph
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (11/20/85)
From the ARPANET directory: "The ARPANET is on operational DoD network and is not intended to compete with comparable commercial service..." ... "The ARPANET is intended to be used solely for the conduct of or in support of official U.S. Government business..." ... The fact that some non-technical groups are allowed to quietly exist "unofficially" does not change the basic rules of the game. In fact, many of the more "non-technical" groups in the LIST-OF-LISTS have virtually zero traffic these days, and the most significant one (SFL) is a fully moderated digest. Most of the other ones, even technical ones, consist of lists that are manually "re-mailed" so offending articles may be removed before being sent out to the network at large. There are lots of other rules too, but I'm not going to take the time quote them all here. The bottom line is that ARPANET is not supposed to compete with the telephone network or Telenet or Tymnet. ARPANET isn't a "free ride" for random companies who don't like paying their netnews phone bills. To treat it as if it were, or to push too far the "flexibility" of the people who run the net, is just asking for a massive crackdown including mail gateway closures, list shutdowns, etc. The ARPANET is not for the use of unassociated third parties to use to "bypass" paying bills. It's really that simple. --Lauren-- P.S. When I say ARPANET above, I refer to ARPANET/MILNET (DDN) of course. --LW--
wombat@ccvaxa.UUCP (11/21/85)
/* Written 12:00 pm Nov 18, 1985 by ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron in ccvaxa:net.news */ Given two MILNET sites who wish to play backbone, they could get away with using the MILNET as the transport medium. The hard part is convincing a government site that it is in their best interest to be a part of the backbone. /* End of text from ccvaxa:net.news */ Maybe you could interest the aberrant psychology researchers in the military?
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/23/85)
> P.S. When I say ARPANET above, I refer to ARPANET/MILNET (DDN) of course. > From the ARPANET directory: > > "The ARPANET is on operational DoD network and is not intended to > compete with comparable commercial service..." > Sorry, Lauren, but this is OBSOLETE. DDN (as opposed to ARPANET) itself is the government intersite data network. > ... > > "The ARPANET is intended to be used solely for the conduct of or in > support of official U.S. Government business..." > True for DDN as well.
sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber) (11/25/85)
I am not trying to promote the idea of using the ARPANET in lieu of
the regular phone system (whatever that may be). I am trying to
promote the idea of utilizing information ALREADY distributed by
ARPANET for more people's benefit. By that I mean having lists
that are ALREADY distributed on the ARPANET gatewayed (is that a
word?) to usenet at MUTIPLE sites to REDUCE having the SAME
lists shipped around the regular phone system. Is this a problem?
I understand that Eric Fair at Berkeley is working to do just this same thing.
I am overjoyed that this is being worked on. I wish I had known about it
before I had posted the original article.
Thanks to ron@brl, jsq@ut-sally and lauren@vortex for the comments and
information.
--
Stan uucp:{ihnp4!shell,rice}!neuro1!sob Opinions expressed
Olan ARPA:sob@rice.arpa here are ONLY mine &
Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)660-9262 noone else's.lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (11/25/85)
My PS clearly said that when I said "ARPANET" I meant ARPANET/MILNET (DDN). The restrictions I noted obviously apply to both ARPANET and MILNET. I think that was pretty clear from my PS! --Lauren--