Xref: utzoo news.admin:14478 comp.mail.uucp:6573
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: news.admin,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: BITFTP
Summary: Heavy duty blinders
Message-ID: <1991May19.191437.26202@xenitec.on.ca>
Date: 19 May 91 19:14:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: xenitec.1991May19.191437.26202
References: <TaF723w163w@phoenix.com>
Followup-To: comp.mail.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Xenitec Consulting Services, Kitchener, ON, CANADA
Lines: 387

In article <TaF723w163w@phoenix.com> stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes:
>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? 
>

No, but as has been pointed out many times now, the problem is net-wide
and not unique to lsuc.

>> 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.
>

Perhpas you don't realize this (running a PC and WAFFLE, for which you
likely have source), but most sites do not have sources to uucico. Trying
to convince a vendor that this needs fixing should be but is not always
an easy thing to do. My immediate problem is not uucico. Mine works. My
immediate problem is email abuse and the network wide problem it is
causing. You continue to miss the distinction after it has been pointed
out to you my multiple posters.

>> 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.
>

You show a serious lack of understanding about what it means to run a
site with *ANY* downstream, which is not surprising since your map entry
shows you to have none (or maybe 1, I can't find an entry for syrgrp in
the maps; Nice map entry too, incorrectly formatted, and of course,
protecting your anonimity should anyone grow tired of your inane
attitude).  The problem has nothing to do with uucico writing on a full
disk, but rather with what fills that disk.

Since you seem to like analogy so much, how about if you know your car
is built to protect your life in all cases except when hit by another
car moving more than 55MPH, would you try to educate people not to speed
or would you bitch at your auto manufacturer for not making your car safer?

>> 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.
>

I don't have any failing here. I don't have a problem with my users. Many
other admins I speak to regularly do, and they do take care of them. I
have not inflicted any suffering on you or anybody else.

>> >> 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. 
>

The question at hand is one of respect for the time and resources of
upstream admins. Sending a small list of cable freqs that happened to
originate in a file is not going to bother any admin. The reason that
people are starting to ignore the distinction is because of idiots like
you who claim that if it is ok to send a small file, then all files are
ok. I am being consistent. I am consistently amazed at your lack of
respect for other peoples resources.

>> 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.
>

Nice evasion of the question. It has nothing to do with me. I ask the
question again. If I were to agree to handle your mail (read: MAIL) for
free, would you be so discourteous as to send me a book?

>> >> >   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.
>

BITFTP still provides service, it just doesn't provide it to YOU, someone
who had no business using it in the first place.

Jim did not single handedly get BITFTP shut down. Nobody "got" BITFTP
shut down. From what I know, Princeton took action on their own inititive,
coincidently the day after Jim's initial posting. This problem has been
building for years, growing in magnitude with every occurrence. The people
at Princeton evidently got tired of hearing about the problem and decided
to put the BIT back into BITFTP.

>> 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.
>

As I said above, niether I or anyone else I am aware of was responible
for you losing your free lunch. People are out there raping women all
the time. Does this mean that because none of my female loved ones have
been raped that I should not speak out against it?

>> 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? 
>

No, I do these things, but I also operate under the assumption that no
one is going to intentionally ram me head on. Yes, it may happen, but I
certainly don't take it as a given.

>> 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. 
>

As you seem to be fond of pointing out, that's your problem. But it would
seem to give you an interest in educating users not to send files by
email. Somehow I doubt you will agree with that. :-)

>> >   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. 
>

They will not change their opinion because they are not in business to
service your every whim and desire. If they choose to not provide
anon-uucp that is their choice and your tuff luck. If you are not on the
internet and can't find alternative methods, you lose. What do I care
about that? Do you really think that the rest of the world computer
community at large owes you whatever you may desire, regardless of how
much of their time and money is involved?

>> 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.
>

Wake up. It is not because of Ontario's or anybody elses problems that
you (and everybody else) have lost their free ftp lunch. It is a constant
pattern of abuse, which you seem to advocate, which caused the service to
be restriced back to the people who are paying for it and for whom it was
originally intended to serve.

>> >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. 
>

That was the generic "me" I was using. Obviously I was not clear enough
for your blinkered field of vision. Let me rephrase. If x user on a
machine not directly connected to the internet wants to get some source
*now*, x user can pay for it (not pay *ME*, or his upstream admins, for
it but pay for it himself, with his machine, his modem, his phone bill
and his time).

>> 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 looking for nice safe easy scapegoat to crap on about losing
your free access to ftp, and so you choose to dump on Ontario. As has
been pointed out many times now, Ontario is not responsible for your loss,
and yet you choose to make snide comments. Makes you 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.   
>

The generic "my" again. Even after seeing it used this way multiple times
you still don't figure it out.

>> 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. 
>

What I have told you is how little I care about assholes who think that
mail hubs like mine and Jim's are in business to service the every whim
and desire of sites downstream of them. In fact I care a great deal about
the net as a whole, and consider people with attitudes like yours to be a
threat to that.

>> 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. 
>

I won't even comment on this again. That was a generic "my" and a generic
"you" again. My user's mail costs me next to nothing in terms of time and
money, and as I said above, I don't have a problem with users doing huge
file transfers. I was refering to a general, recurring net-wide problem,
not to my specific site.

>> >   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. 
>

I can't possibly believe that you really expect anybody to buy this load
of bullshit. The reason that they are thinking internet when they set up
ftp is because ftp is an internet protocol. The reason they *don't* think
of other networks and protocols are many and varied, and you point out
some of them. Another would be to avoid having to deal with idiots like
you. Send me a note sometime telling me how it is that you manage to know
so much about what Internet admins think about when setting up ftp, when
you clearly have no experience in this relm. I don't either, BTW, but I
don't presume to second guess their motivations or reasoning, or demand
that they set up services to serve me when they may have neither the
resources or desire to do so.

>> 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. 
>

That was my point. BITFTP provided a way to use FTP on a store and
forward network, without regard to the costs incurred by the storing
sites. FTP on the internet does not have this problem as it goes directly
from source to destination. In solving the the problem of not being able
to use FTP from a site not on the internet, it created a whole new set of
problems, and hence was not a viable solution. Other solutions have been
proposed here which would solve these problems while respecting the
wishes of the admins of resources used along the way.

>> 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. 
>

A useful statement. Mail will never fill my spool unless some idiot goes
out of his way to fill it. My uucico *does* stop when full. This does not
change the fact that it was an idiot who filled it, nor does it change
the fact that those people who request file tranfers that fill my spool
without checking with me first to see if I have alternatives are idiots.
I have allocated sufficient mail spool to handle 200+% normal mail traffic
for all of my downstream. If it fills, it is becuase of abuse. How uucico
reacts to that abuse it incidental to the fact of abuse. It is the abuse
I am trying to stop. Fixing uucico does not address this problem.

>> 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?

No, but I have found that net.courtesy provides for upstream admins
removing connectivity for abusers. It prevents recurrence of the problem
in most cases. If a reckless driver smashes into me, I cannot change the
fact that my car and perhaps myself will be injured, however I will I try
to make damn sure that it is a long time before the other driver gets back
on the road.

			--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