Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!mailrus!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Link to GEnie Message-ID: <14938@bfmny0.UU.NET> Date: 20 Nov 89 17:31:46 GMT References: <1989Nov10.171006.10373@monymsys.uucp> <748@lakart.UUCP> <1989Nov20.015352.4051@monymsys.uucp> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) Lines: 31 Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: In article <1989Nov20.015352.4051@monymsys.uucp> david@monymsys.UUCP (David Kozinn) writes: > Another consideration with [a GEnie link] >going through an individual gateway involves security. Sure, any mail going >out through the internet can easily be read, altered, etc. by anyone with the >proper privs on any machine that it goes through, but I'm sure that GE's >lawyers are closely studying the ramifications of passing relatively secure, >private mail (originating on GEnie) out through the non-secure, >non-guaranteed-delivery world of the internet. Surely this is a non-issue. Just as with FAX and snail mail delivery options, once it's out GEnie's door their liability is at an end. They need do no more than make this clear in the Internet link documentation. The bottom line is, CIS and MCIMAIL do it, so GEnie will do it sooner or later to compete. Nevertheless a private gateway could be a real nuisance, as GEnie loses control over how the feature is being implemented. And while they may have little legal liability for gateway security and reliability, it's still in their competitive business interest to make any gateway the best it can be. Joe Schmoe noodling messages along as and when he feels like it does not put GEnie's best foot forward in the net.sweepstakes. I wouldn't be surprised if the biggest hurdle to a gateway right now were those gas-powered Victorian mainframes they use... -- "Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you | Tom Neff will -- that will uncover a lot of things. | tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET You open that scab, there's a hell of a lot of things... This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves." -- RN 6/23/72