Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!maytag!xenitec!gws From: gws@xenitec.on.ca (Geoff Scully) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: BITFTP grief! Keywords: BITFTP, MBAS, Store-and-Forward Message-ID: <1991May18.192000.6202@xenitec.on.ca> Date: 18 May 91 19:20:00 GMT Article-I.D.: xenitec.1991May18.192000.6202 References: <1991May17.041635.4503@iguana.uucp> Followup-To: comp.mail.uucp Distribution: na Organization: Xenitec Consulting Services, Kitchener, ON, CANADA Lines: 202 In article stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: >merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: > >> In article stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) write >> >> changing uucico is not solving the problem of MBAS abuse. it solves the >> problem of low spool space. >> >> this can also be solved by throwing hardware at it. > > Throwing hardware at it solves nothing. As long as uucico accepts >more data that can be stored on disk, you are vulnerable to uucico >filling your spool area. You are BETTING that when you have more >hardware it won't happen, but until you fix uucico, it can. > Can and will are different things. Fixing uucico (umpteen different versions from umpteen different vendors) and ensuring that the new uucico is widely distributed to the installed base of UUCP connected Usenet sites is not by any stretch of the imagination, a possibility. At least in the short term. Not that it is a bad idea, just that it does not solve the immediate problem. > You are not the only one in this situation. I learned the hard way at >this site that uucico is untrustworthy. When it happened to me, I didn't >blame USENET and tell everyone to stop posting. I "fixed" the uucico I >have by running it only under supervision. Since that time, I have NEVER >suffered a filled spool. There are two kinds of admins on the net: those >who have had uucico hose them, and those that will have it happen. > Hahahaha. John, I don't know how much of a downstream you have, but for sites like xenitec (with ~25 downstream) and lsuc (with ~75 downstream) the idea of only running uucico under supervised conditions is absurd. >> the point is that we are providing email forwarding services as a benefit >> to the local uucp community, > > So do many others. > >> it's assholes and ignoramuses who absolutely positively have to have THAT >> file, but are not willing to pay their own way. > > If you have a problem with the users of your system, take it up with >them. Don't come out into the world and demand that everyone else give >up what they have just because you can't afford to give it to your >users. If you want THEM to pay their way, well, then, CHARGE THEM. With >all the lawyers you must have floating around there, the legal issues >certainly wouldn't be a problem. > The point is not that we want to CHARGE them, but rather that we want them to be respectful of the fact that we provide them with a service WITHOUT CHARGING them. No one needs the headaches of administering the accounting for this in addition to administering a mail hub. >> email is for messaging, not file transfers. > > Email is for what the users email. When someone asks me, in mail, for >the frequencies for cable channels, am I supposed to type it in or am I >allowed to send him the FILE I have already typed in? Is he now >prohibited from saving this information in a FILE, because "email is for >messaging, not file transfers."? Email is an analog to paper mail, and >sometimes people mail books. > There is a big difference between a list of cable freqs and ~60 MEG of sources. Oh, and BTW, when you send a book to somebody, do you send it to somebody 1/3 of the way and then ask them to pay the price in time and stamps to have it continue its journey? Not likely. You send it directly to the destination, paying the postage yourself. Again, email is not and was not ever intended as a way to send huge files over a store and forward network. >> > What will you do when someone posts a request for something and >> >dozens of people mail it to him? >> >> again, email is for messaging, not file transfers. > > Respond to the question. People are already posting requests for >files to be mailed to them as a direct result of you getting BITFTP shut >off. What will you do when your spool fills up from people mailing files >to each other? You are going to cut off mail. Then people will be asking >for stuff to be posted. Blam! No more news. > What a totally stupid and reactionist view this is. You still operate under the assumption that the user making such a request has any business doing so. Jim did respond to the question. Sending large file transfers over a store and forward email network is evil. Period. If I got such a request (or found one from my downstream in the news), I would either advise him that I had these files for him, or advise him as to where it is available and tell him to establish a direct connect to the site that has it. He has no business expecting me or my upstream to pay for his wants and needs. Oh, and before somebody mentions that news is a store and forward method of large file transfer, I know this. I have allocated 200Mb of news spool for this purpose. I have only allocated ~70 Mb for mail. If my news spool overflows and drops some news on the floor, this is a hassle, but if my mail spool overflows and drops mail on the floor, I and probably many of my downstream users would be rightly pissed off. >> >> how much of a net.lobby do we have to do to get pucc.princeton.edu to shut >> >> down BITFTP? >> > >> > No! This is a valuable service to the entire UUCP community. Well, at >> >least it is here. >> >> No! BITFTP is a terrible DIS-service to the entire UUCP community. > > Your uucico hosed you while transferring BITFTP mail, so BITFTP is >bad for everyone. That is a grand-daddy of over-generalizations. > As Jim mentions below, BITFTP has hosed many more than just lsuc's spool, and as a result, (admittedly only partially due to this), all of Ontario is facing termination of our access to (free) Internet mail forwarding. It is not an over-generalization. All of our downstream will suffer when this happens. Oh, and this access will still be cut off even though the BITFTP server at princeton now does The Right Thing. It was abused and now we will all pay for it reagardless. The volume brought it to the attention of the bean counters at the organization that runs the IP service in this province that alot of people were getting alot of stuff for free, so now we will get *NOTHING* for free. > BITFTP makes available a huge amount of information, much of which is >not available in any other way. Alot of the traffic on USENET (one of >those UUCP things, you know) is eliminated by the single posting "X is >available via anonymous ftp at A.B.C.D." The fact that YOU might have to >pass the same thing twice or thrice is more than compensated for by all >the things you won't have to carry AT ALL because they weren't posted. > Bullshit. At some point in time, most everything that is available *immediately* by FTP will be available *eventually* via the normal UseNet distribution method. The point is, if you want it *now*, you pay for it, not me. If you are willing to wait, I am willing to dedicate resources on my machine to bring it in (and in many cases archive it for anon-uucp) via UseNet. For those things that don't make it to UseNet and are not available any other way (anon-uucp, tapes, etc) all I can say is "Too Bad." You are deprived of the *priviledge* of using that free software because you can't get it. You do not have a *right* to have that software, and you certainly don't have a right to have it at my expense. Oh, and for those people (like Peter) who complain about how much of a hassle it is to set up direct connects to anon-uucp sites to do these transfers, all I can say is, tuff luck. Compare the cost of you doing this to the cost of buying a router and leased line to an AlterNet (or equiv) Point Of Presence and doing the FTP yourself. All I will say is that I will not save you the time and money by spending my time and money. > When EVERY anonymous ftp site is also available via a mailserver, >THEN you can argue that BITFTP is of NO service to UUCP. It will be a >long time before that happens. Those who set up anon-ftp sites tend to >think in terms of Internet and forget about anyone who can't ftp. > There is a reason for this. Get it straight once and for all. FTP IS AN INTERNET SERVICE!!! IT WAS DESIGNED TO TRANSFER FILES BETWEEN DIRECTLY CONNECTED HOSTS COMMUNICATING AT HIGH SPEED. IT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO BE USED BY STORE AND FORWARD NETWORKS! PERIOD. At the point in time where even a sizable minority of anon-ftp sites provide mail-servers, I will go out of my way to scan pass-through mail traffic, perhaps even partially manually, and ensure that any such requests passing through me promptly hit the floor. I doubt that I will have to do much of this, because my upstream will catch most of them before I do and drop them on the floor for me. >> talk to the sites in Ontario, Canada, who are possibly going to lose all >> internet connectivity partially due to increased mail volume (ie. BITFTP). > > And just how is BITFTP going to increase your mail volume when it no >longer accepts mail requests? Or is this your threat for when human >generated mail fills your spool? If I were one of these sites I would >start looking for another feed right now, because you have already >indicated that you aren't happy carrying their mail and are looking for >the next available excuse to cut it totally. > He never said he didn't want to carry their mail, he said he is unwilling to have their 60Mb file transfers trashing his file systems and wasting 3 days of his time. Human generated *MAIL* will NEVER fill my spool, short of some idiot mailbombing a user here or downstream of me. That problem can be quickly solved with a phone call to the offending site's upstream admin. Those few who have tried this in the past have rapidly found out that they made a big mistake. If you were on my downstream you would not have to worry about making the decision to look for another site to connect to, as I would have already dropped you with this attitude. 'Nuff said. --g --- Geoff Scully Support Services -- XeniTec Consulting Services Internet: gws@xenitec.on.ca UUCP: ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!gws "We need to look at what we owe each other, rather than what we can make off each other." Bob Rae, National Disaster Party, Ontario Premier elect. 09/06/90