Xref: utzoo news.admin:14453 comp.mail.uucp:6554 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!njin!uupsi!fozzie!stanley From: stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: BITFTP Message-ID: Date: 19 May 91 04:21:40 GMT Organization: Mad Scientist Lines: 270 gws@xenitec.on.ca (Geoff Scully) writes: > Can and will are different things. Fixing uucico (umpteen different > versions from umpteen different vendors) Lsuc runs umpteen different versions? > Not that it is a bad idea, just that it does not solve > the immediate problem. Fixing YOUR copy of uucico WILL fix your problem. Adding a disk will NOT fix the problem, it just puts it off for a while. > 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. If you choose to run software that has the proven ability to hose your disks, and you run it without supervision, they YOU have made the choice to accept the occasional hosing of your disks. YOU made that choice of your own free will. If YOU now decide that you don't like the decision you made, don't blame or punish the rest of us because YOU made the wrong decision. If you choose to point a gun to your head and pull the trigger, don't bitch about the person who loaded it. > > 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. Fine. Don't charge them. That is YOUR choice. But if your users are a problem for you, YOU deal with THEM. Don't expect us to quietly suffer your failings. > >> email is for messaging, not file transfers. > > > > Email is for what the users email. When someone asks me, in mail, for > > There is a big difference between a list of cable freqs and ~60 MEG of > sources. The only difference is size. Don't claim that email isn't for file transfers and then say email is ok for file transfers. Be consistent. > 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. If you don't want to handle mail without charging for it, don't do it. If you want to drop replies from bitftp on the floor, do it. > >> > 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. No, the stupid and reactionist view is to get BITFTP to stop providing a service just because you can't handle it. > You still operate > under the assumption that the user making such a request has any business > doing so. I made no such assumption. People ARE doing it. They will continue to do it. People will respond to those requests. It makes no difference whether they SHOULD be doing it, it will happen. What will YOU do when it causes YOU problems? We already know how you handle problems with your users asking for things from BITFTP -- you get BITFTP to stop accepting requests from anyone. > Jim did respond to the question. Sending large file transfers > over a store and forward email network is evil. Period. That is not an answer. The question is not if it is evil, it is how you will handle it when it DOES happen. Automobile accidents are evil things. Do you refuse to wear a seat belt or carry auto insurance because accidents are evil? > 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. That's nice. That's what I would do, too. That is not what everyone would do. That is a fact. When I posted such a message telling someone where the software was, I got 100+k of mail from someone who decided that it was being nice to mail it to me without asking if I had already received it, much less if I wanted it. > > 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. Cry for Ontario. So now Ontario will have to pay for mail forwarding just like many other sites do. Why should I worry about what Ontario gets for free? You seem to be speaking for Ontario, and Ontario's opinion is that I should have to convince NASA to set up anonymous UUCP and that I should have to call them long distance to get the material I want from them. Well, tough titties for Ontario. When they change their opinion, maybe I will change mine. > It is not an over-generalization. All of our downstream will suffer when > this happens. When all UUCP sites are downstream from you, then it will not be an over-generalization. > 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. Don't forget, the reason the rest of us are paying is because Ontario couldn't handle it. > >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. Bullshit. > The point is, if you want it *now*, you pay for it, > not me. When my mail from BITFTP starts to pass through your site, which is the only way you would be paying for my mail, then you have a complaint. Until then, don't complain about paying for carrying my mail when you don't. > 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. God no. If everything available via anon-ftp were to show up in USENET, EVERYONE would be suffering. > 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." Ontario has what it wants, the rest of the world can take a hike. Great opinion. Makes Ontario look real friendly. > 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. Since none of my mail of carried at your expense, you have no right to tell me I can't send it. > 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. Yeah, you have already told us how little you care about anything outside your site. > 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. Unless you can provide proof that my mail is costing you anything, shut the hell up about how much money and time my mail is costing you. Or Peter da Silva's mail. Or anyone else's. If you have a problem with YOUR user's mail costing you time and money, then YOU deal with YOUR user's. > > 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. Those who set up anon-ftp sites generally don't think about setting up anon-uucp connections, and that is probably because they are thinking of Internet and not UUCP or BITNET or anything else. It is also because some of them have rules about dialup lines. It is NOT because ftp is an internet only protocol, it is because they are on the internet and don't realize that there are other networks. > 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. Get this straight once and for all. FTP IS NOT BEING USED IN ANY STORE AND FORWARD NETWORKS. THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT, UNTIL RECENTLY, BITFTP SOLVED. > 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, You can't afford the time to watch your uucico to keep it from hosing your disks, but you can afford the time to read all the mail passing through to make sure it doesn't violate your sense of propriety. Go figure. > and ensure that any such > requests passing through me promptly hit the floor. That is your right. Do it now. That is the proper solution to the problem that you are having. The proper solution is not to screw up a service for everyone just because YOU can't handle it. > >> 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. He chose to run software that is a known disk hoser. > Human generated *MAIL* will NEVER fill my spool, Never? > short > of some idiot mailbombing a user here or downstream of me. A useful statement. Mail will never fill my spool unless mail fills my spool. If you had a uucico that would stop accepting things when the spool got close to full, you could THEN say that human generated mail will NEVER fill your spool, without any qualifications. > That problem > can be quickly solved with a phone call to the offending site's upstream > admin. Your spool will be cleaned up by calling another site's admin? What is he going to do, dial into your system and clean it up for you?