tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (12/31/90)
In article <PCG.90Dec31145142@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > [ ... kithrup has links to both SCO, a USENET site, and > ucscc, which is an Internet site but has an UUCP link to > kithrup, yet does not advertise itself as a USENET site or > an Internet-USENET gateway ... ] Excuse me, but what in the world is an "Internet-USENET gateway"? Usenet is just a name for the set of computers worldwide that exchange Netnews (not mail), regardless of the communications nets they use to do so. It has nothing to do with mail routing, and there is no way to describe a site's Usenet presence or absence in the UUCP maps, except informally through comments. I would not ordinarily object to casual misuse of the basic mail/news terminology, but when someone of Piercarlo's stature gets it wrong, and bases an entire long argument on it, I have to wonder what he really means. There is no such thing as a "Usenet gateway" for mail. If there is some kind of mail gateway one is not supposed to set up, what IS it, actually? -- The most common given name in the world is Mohammad; | Tom Neff the most common family name in the world is Chang. | Can you imagine the enormous number of people in the | tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM world named Mohammad Chang? -- Derek Wills | uunet!bfmny0!tneff
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (12/31/90)
On 29 Dec 90 18:24:22 GMT, sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) said: sef> I guess I didn't make myself terribly clear, since a couple of sef> people have told me the same information. In your previous message you did make yourself terribly clear, but I had hoped that nobody would notice -- now that you are insisting, a reply will have to come. [ ... kithrup has links to both SCO, a USENET site, and ucscc, which is an Internet site but has an UUCP link to kithrup, yet does not advertise itself as a USENET site or an Internet-USENET gateway ... ] sef> All but a handful of my outgoing mail goes through ucscc. Since sef> I'm running mmdf, I have things set up very nicely (i.e., I don't sef> run pathalias). The problem is people who mail to *me*. If they sef> are running pathalias, the mail gets routed through the sco sef> somehow, not ucscc (which is about 8 times quicker). *uunet* sef> routes mail to kithrup.uucp through sco, instead of uucp. sef> one person told me to get a registered domain. I do: kithrup.com. A registration in the DNS implies an MX record pointing to you -- this means that Internet sites that want to reach you already see 'ucscc' as their gateway to you. Thus the reason why you would like to register ucscc as an Internet to USENET gateway in the UUCP maps must be so that other USENET sites, which use the maps as condensed by pathalias instead of the DNS, could reach you using the Internet as a fast and free long distance link, by doing USENET-Internet-USENET routes (that you seem to imply to use yourself when sending mail). Forunately 'uunet' do the proper thing instead. sef> Now, is there some magic I can put into my map entry (or a forged sef> map entry for ucscc, which I would prefer not to do) which will sef> stop messages being routed through sco? There are two problems, that you describe yourself as doing or considering actions that are either illegal or extremely rude, as: 1) The Internet cannot be used in any circumstance as part of a route between two USENET sites. 2) The Internet backbone and many regional IP networks cannot be used even between two Internet sites if the traffic is strictly private or commercial. 3) Advertising 'ucscc' in the UUCP maps as being a USENET site *and* an Internet-USENET gateway without telling them is regarded as unspeakably rude. Thank goodness you would prefer not to do it. I have no reason to doubt that currently you discriminate and are careful to send traffic via 'ucscc' onto the Internet only when the destination site is on the Internet *and* the traffic is related to education or research, and you route via 'sco' all traffic that is commercial or private in nature or has a USENET site destination. For the sake of avoiding possibly very serious trouble for yourself, 'ucscc', and a lot of sites that value Internet/USENET connectivity and do not want to see it imperiled by freeloaders, please do not even consider beginning to use your 'ucscc' connection to the Internet for personal or commercial traffic, or to act as a the-taxpayer-be-damned, free, quick channel between you and another USENET site, and tricking 'uunet' or other sites into cooperating with this by faking an entry for 'ucscc' as an Internet-USENET gateway without even telling them. Somehow I am reminded of Pepys' famous diary when he writes about catholics being found out and executed in England a few hundred years ago to the the effect that "I wish to God that they either conform or be wiser and not be caught", except that I somehow suspect that your motives into considering certain quick fixes have little to do with noble issues such as freedom of worship, but maybe of Mammon. As to me, I pay for every single private or non strictly research or education related e-mail message, photocopy, laser print, or phone call I make in this University, and I am grateful for the concession, as it is much more convenient for me to do such things here than having to wait to be at home, and I think that having to reimburse the cost is only fair. -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (01/02/91)
In the referenced article tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: #In article <PCG.90Dec31145142@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: #> [ ... kithrup has links to both SCO, a USENET site, and #> ucscc, which is an Internet site but has an UUCP link to #> kithrup, yet does not advertise itself as a USENET site or #> an Internet-USENET gateway ... ] # #Excuse me, but what in the world is an "Internet-USENET gateway"? # #I would not ordinarily object to casual misuse of the basic mail/news #terminology, but when someone of Piercarlo's stature gets it wrong, and #bases an entire long argument on it, I have to wonder what he really means. I shouldn't worry about it - or anything else that Piercarlo posts. It is his normal way to almost totally misunderstand a situation, build a whole false edifice based on a small grain of truth, then post polemics complaining that the situation he has imagined is wrong. I used to argue with him - especially because of that grain of truth which sometimes does need to be dealt with - but I have learned that it is a waste of time. And nobody should believe any of his statements about how the various nets are organised unless they are corroborated by other, competent, people. I am sorry to so denigrate the views of another member of the net: it is not my usual way. But Piercarlo has confused so many arguements with his distorted view of the world that I consider it necessary to warn others. Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW Usenet works on the principle that 10,000 people know more about the answer to any question than one does. Unfortunately they know 10,000 different answers.
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (01/03/91)
On 1 Jan 91 22:55:20 GMT, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) said: dww> In the referenced article tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: pcg> In article <PCG.90Dec31145142@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: tneff> Excuse me, but what in the world is an "Internet-USENET gateway"? tneff> I would not ordinarily object to casual misuse of the basic tneff> mail/news terminology, but when someone of Piercarlo's stature tneff> gets it wrong, and bases an entire long argument on it, I have to tneff> wonder what he really means. Please note the (gentle, and well accepted) irony: the paragraph above can be read "Piercarlo's entire argument makes no sense whatever because it is based entirely on totally inappropriate terminology". It can also be read in many other ways. I like this style. I like less this style: dww> I shouldn't worry about it - or anything else that Piercarlo posts. dww> It is his normal way to almost totally misunderstand a situation, dww> build a whole false edifice based on a small grain of truth, then dww> post polemics complaining that the situation he has imagined is dww> wrong. [ ... and worse ... ] This is called humour-impairment, man. Cool your jets :->. As to whether there is really something strange in the water in Aberyswyth, let the readership beware. I am quite sure that they can make up their own minds. Networks are a very political thing, and everybody knows, or ought to know, that. Maybe not everybody knows that I have no interest whatsoever in these politics except intellectual curiosity and concern over an important aspect of the field which I have chosen for my career. I am not selling anything here -- I am just a wary customer. Others cannot say the same. Rubbishing other people's reputation in the extravagant way you use demonstrates little diplomatic sense. Or maybe you want to become a celebrity -- maybe one day it will be possible to prove attribution, and then you make history by being the first person to lose a million pounds thanks to a posting. Keep trying :->. -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
wain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) (01/04/91)
In article <3882@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: >In the referenced article tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >#In article <PCG.90Dec31145142@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > >I am sorry to so denigrate the views of another member of the net: it is >not my usual way. But Piercarlo has confused so many arguements with his >distorted view of the world that I consider it necessary to warn others. > Thanks David, think most readers saw through the polemics. I guess what I'm wondering, is whether you ever won any of the arguments. :-) -- Wain Dobson, Vancouver, B.C. ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!seac!wain
thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog) (01/06/91)
Mr. Grandi used an oddity of the English language called a 'synecdoche'. This is a reference to an object by naming a part of that object, c.f. a "field hand" or "deck hand". UseNet refers to the bulletin board system itself, he was talking about the larger UUCP/Internet web. Other than that, he uses the words correctly and gets the legalities correctly too. Pay attention! The Internet is being used as a "commons", as in "The Tragedy of the Commons". UUCP->Internet->UUCP is an abuse if it's not government-sponsored research, or you're not designing bombs :-) Synecdoche is your new word for the day. Pronounce the 'ch' 'sh'.
pjt@cpac.washington.edu (Larry Setlow) (01/06/91)
In article <37629@cup.portal.com> thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog) writes:
Synecdoche is your new word for the day. Pronounce the 'ch' 'sh'.
[email bounced. Think of this as my inappropriate post for the month]
Better still, prounounce the 'ch' as 'k' and the 'e' as 'ee'. Four
syllables, stress on the second.tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (01/07/91)
In article <37629@cup.portal.com> thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog) writes: >Mr. Grandi used an oddity of the English language called a 'synecdoche'. Even if he had, synecdoche has no proper place in a technical discussion about which networks should interconnect. The part cannot be casually substituted for the whole, or vice versa, when the very meat of the argument concerns inappropriate routing through parts and wholes. >The Internet is being used as a "commons", >as in "The Tragedy of the Commons". UUCP->Internet->UUCP is an abuse >if it's not government-sponsored research, or you're not designing bombs :-) First of all, there is a distinction between simple misuse of an apparently free resource, versus the specific economic paradox embodied in the "Tragedy of the Commons." In the latter (Commons) case, it was explicitly in each user's interest to maximize his (quite permissible) use of the resource, in order that he not suffer competitively with other users; the end result being destruction of the resource for all. But in the Internet case, (a) there is no underlying right to use it as a third party mail carrier in the first place; (b) given the availability of non-Internet ways for many sites to get mail delivered (high speed modems make UUCP much more attractive, for instance), users are not compelled to keep using the Internet resource forever even as quality of service degrades with increased usage. They can switch to something else. So the much-overused Commons model fits poorly. What we really have is a modified black market, where the Man could theoretically lower the boom any day but doesn't, and where the door is always open for someone to come in and offer better service for a cheaper price -- but while the quasi-illicit resource is out there for the taking and not yet overwhelmed, only a few (like UUNET and PSI) will bother. Finally, there is not much hard data available on the extent of Internet misuse. What misuse does occur is only partly intentional; some of it is a by-product of inaccurate UUCP mapping, and could be corrected. >Synecdoche is your new word for the day. Pronounce the 'ch' 'sh'. Did you know that the word 'gullible' is not in the dictionary? (Synecdoche is, of course, pronounced sin-EK-duh-kee. Pedantry is its own reward :-) ) -- "I'm not sure I've even got the brains to #:# Tom Neff be President." -- Barry Goldwater, 1964 #:# tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (01/07/91)
According to thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog): >UUCP->Internet->UUCP is an abuse if it's not government-sponsored research, >or you're not designing bombs :-) If so, then why is the DNS so happy to register UUCP-only sites? Not that I'm complaining about the DNS, but it seems inconsistent. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "If Usenet exists, then what is its mailing address?" -- me "c/o The Daily Planet, Metropolis." -- Jeff Daiell
amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) (01/09/91)
In article <27887475.65E6@tct.uucp>, chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > If so, then why is the DNS so happy to register UUCP-only sites? Not > that I'm complaining about the DNS, but it seems inconsistent. DNS visibility has nothing to do with Internet connectivity as such. In fact, the DNS and IP network number applications make it quite clear that actual Internet connectivity is a separate issue that must be approved by the appropriate agencies. -- Amanda Walker Visix Software Inc.
rdc30med@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson) (01/09/91)
In article <27887475.65E6@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog): >>UUCP->Internet->UUCP is an abuse if it's not government-sponsored research, >>or you're not designing bombs :-) > >If so, then why is the DNS so happy to register UUCP-only sites? Not >that I'm complaining about the DNS, but it seems inconsistent. Perhaps to allow Internet sites to send mail to them by only having to specify user@site.dom.ain ? It sure makes life easier for me and my users. I can use the UUCP maps for one of my MUAs (ELM), but not the one used by the majority of my users, and not for the MTAs. So having MX records for UUCP sites served by an Internet site is A Good Thing(tm). I believe most dual sites (I am one) only advertise their UUCP links in the maps. I connect to some Internet sites via both SMTP and UUCP, but I only show the UUCP links. That way, the maps will only generate a UUCP path even though I could use the Internet for that hop (by could use I mean in the technology sense, not the legal sense). -- Mike Dobson, Sys Admin for | Internet: rdc30med@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil | UUCP: ...uunet!mimsy!nmrdc1!rdc30med AT&T 3B2/600G Sys V R 3.2.2 | BITNET: dobson@usuhsb or nrd0mxd@vmnmdsc WIN/TCP for 3B2 | MCI-Mail: 377-2719 or 0003772719@mcimail.com