Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:6075 news.admin:12733 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,news.admin Subject: Re: UUPSI's new rules Message-ID: <12660027@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Date: 13 Mar 91 08:55:35 GMT References: <1991Mar11.143824.24170@searchtech.com> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Followup-To: comp.mail.uucp Lines: 21 In article stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: > Now PSI is saying (to some) that you may neither send nor receive >mail through PSI involving third parties. Now what use is a domain name? >If PSI did not intend to allow third party mail to be sent or recieved >through uupsi, why was getting a domain name one of the features of >their service? Why do they MX, if all they will allow is mail from PSI? Hehe. That is indeed what the stupidly worded contract says, isn't it. Of course if you can't send mail TO or FROM anyone else but UUPSI, then your "mail feed" is worthless, so we presume that's not what PSI "really meant," despite what their contract _says_. Therefore PSI's customers are in the wonderful bind of having to violate the letter of their contract every day, relying instead on PSI's voluntary goodwill in enforcing an informal, verbal reinterpretation of the signed contract. If you want to run a business relationship on "never mind what I say, just do what I tell you," why bother with messy old contracts to begin with? Ain't chaos wonderful. As has been suggested several times, it would be a piece of cake to circumvent PSI's restrictions, but... to quote a sainted former President... "That would be wrong!"