Xref: utzoo news.admin:14520 comp.mail.uucp:6606 Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.mail.uucp Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!maytag!xenitec!iguana!merce From: merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) Subject: Re: BITFTP Message-ID: <1991May20.182222.16345@iguana.uucp> Organization: Ed (the iguana) Memorial Society References: <489@frcs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20 May 91 18:22:22 GMT In article stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: >paul@frcs.UUCP (Paul Nash) writes: > >> As one of those with a long-distance (trans-Atlantic) telephone, and >> attendant bill (that comes out of my private and personal pocket :-(), >> I can only agree. This problem has caused me to turn off mail forwarding >> to other sites, so that they can't get _any_ mail via my link, because >> of a few megabytes (and $1000's) of FTP stuff that was spewed over >> my phone. > > This is the proper solution. If you cannot afford it, and cannot >get your users to stop, don't do it. > >> As it is, a few bad-mannered people >> have spoiled it for everyone. This makes _me_ feel guilty, but it's >> the only way to cope with a bad-mannered bank-manager. > > Just don't let those few bad-mannered users of YOUR system spoil >it for everyone who doesn't use your system. you miss the point. everyone lost because of a few bad-mannered users on his neighbor's systems. before the abuse, he was willing to let modest amounts of transatlantic mail flow. then some boneheads decided they HAD TO HAVE that stuff from across the pond, and as a result, they connection was shut down to outside use. Mr. Nash was participating in what would now be considered a "classic USENET" role. he had resources, and he allowed the net at large to use them within his constraints. now that is gone. Mr. Stanley, please remember that a larger portion of uucpNET is run using other people's resources which are given as a public service. not everyone has to pay to be a member of USENET, and as a result they can live with the restrictions placed on them. your right to bitch about traffic stops when it leaves PSI. when your service is impeded, you can only yell at PSI. >gcs@polari.UUCP (Greg Sheppard) writes: > >> I wrote: >>> If you don't want to be a mail server, then stop doing it. If you don't >>>want to carry mail to or from bitftp, don't do it. If you can't handle the >>>traffic, then get out of the kitchen. Don't demand that the world stop >>>just because you want off. >> >> This seems like a pretty reasonable response. Maybe some constructive >> solution for the uucp camp might be proposed. > > The simplest solution to the problem is to filter out all upstream >mail to known mail servers. This is trivial to do, and all it takes is a >simple script that runs before uucico is executed to scan the mail >spool. If you want to make doubly sure you kill it all, grep all mail >after uucico runs for From: known mail servers. another example of your total lack of understanding of the operation of a mail hub. we have 9 modems, X.25 and direct links which can all be concurrently active. trivial to you is not trivial to us. this would also add processing cycles, which could be more effectively used in doing work for the organization that is paying for the resources. remember, most hubs are not in the business of providing mail routing, they do it as a public service. to be nice to the community at large. > While killing files going downstream doesn't keep the spool from >filling up, it does make it harder for someone to find new and unique >ways around the upstream killer. The upstream killer is the main >protection: if he can't ask for it, it won't be sent. if he doesn't ask for it (or can't) it won't be sent. > If I get the inclination, and if I thought it would help get BITFTP >turned back on, I would write the first version of this perl script. I >couldn't guarantee that it would work everywhere (the UUCP here is not >standard) it would be close (I hope). If you don't have perl, it is >available for anonymous ftp from .... Oops. If you don't have perl, you >should get it. and what if perl won't run on your system? yes it is possible there are systems out there who can't run perl (for various reasons). again, you illustrate your ignorance of the environment you are trying to fix. the UUCP you are running, as i understand from a posting referencing your map entry, is WAFFLE on an MS-DOS machine. hmmmm..... how many down stream sites do you have? what speed is your modem? is your system running 24 hr's a day? how much space do you have allocated for uucp/news? don't talk like a sysadmin, if you don't know what you are talking about. [ BTW: WAFFLE, in my experience, the best uucp suite on MS-DOS machines ] -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "Clickity-Click, Barba-Trick" - The Barbapapas ]