Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!turbo.bio.net!lear From: lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Who pays the bill? Message-ID: Date: 30 Jul 90 17:57:04 GMT References: <1990Jul29.073316.16433@vicom.com> <65517@sgi.sgi.com> Organization: GenBank Computing Resource for Mol. Biology Lines: 31 You are most certainly correct that a UUCP map entry is an offer to do a service without expectation of payment or reciprocity. We differ in belief as to what that service is. By declaring links in a map, I offer a mail service to specific sites. I make no claims what I will do with a header, other than that I will conform to RFC 1123, and that I *will* optimize UUCP paths. My neighbors understand this. You might also argue that the service is incompetant, but such a statement requires backing. I would argue that my rabid rerouter is far more compentant than the users who send mail through me. My rerouter's information reflects a dynamic topology, of which many changes go unnoticed. I handle several hundred pieces of UUCP mail per week, and reroute each one of them. In the two years that I've been rerouting, I've received two complaints associated with the optimization. Both problems were promptly resolved. A public note might be a reasoble recourse if the sytem administrator failed to respond, if your mail is getting where it needs to go, you have no basis for complaint. By the way, the rudeness of the original request is the point we are arguing, so it would not be irrelevant. Technically, when handling oneself, my understanding is that the rudeness of others is always irrelevant, be it the requesting or the requested. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net] -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]