Xref: utzoo comp.mail.misc:5528 comp.mail.uucp:6640 news.admin:14559
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp,news.admin
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lsuc!jim
From: jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: BITFTP grief!
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 21 May 1991 14:21:21 GMT
Message-ID: <1991May21.142121.8168@lsuc.on.ca>
References: <1991May19.194044.24840@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991May20.180914.26084@chinacat.unicom.com> <1991May21.025032.25282@chinet.chi.il.us>

In article <1991May21.025032.25282@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>In article <1991May20.180914.26084@chinacat.unicom.com> chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes:
>>But that's still all beside the point - I don't
>>think that justifies BITFTP or mail servers.
>
>Why - do you think mail should only be delivered when it suits the
>carrier's whims?

why should USENET be any different than the internet.

the internet is made up of a group of regional networks.

each regional network sets policy as to what is acceptable use of their
resources, and deals with the packets accordingly.

USENET (uucpNET) is made up of a group of uucp hosts.

each host should be able to set policy as to what is acceptable use of
their resources.

if that host's whims are that BITFTP or alt.sex.pictures is not
acceptable use, they can deal with it accordingly.

i think it is reasonable for the users of downstream sites to be at the
mercy of upstream host policy.

i think it is totally unreasnable for upstream hosts to be at the mercy
of downstream user's whims.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer  jim@lsuc.On.Ca  || ...!uunet!attcan!lsuc!jim    +1 416 947-5258 ]
[ Educational Systems Manager - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, CANADA  ]
[ Standards are great. They give non-conformists something to not conform to. ]
[      The opinions expressed here may or may not be those of my employer     ]