Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:6612 news.admin:14524 Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,news.admin Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!uupsi!schoff From: schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) Subject: Re: BITFTP grief! Message-ID: <1991May20.224849.19700@uu.psi.com> Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. References: <1991May20.131422.29601@uu.psi.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 91 22:48:49 GMT In article emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti) writes: > >But you could have sold your dial-up customers access to a restricted >telnet shell that only connected to that one white pages service, no? >They're already dialing up some kind of terminal server, this would >have been one more service. Ditto access to other services available >through telnet-style connections, e.g. access to archie, "knowbot" >stuff, full-text search through interesting databases, etc etc. It >could be done without going to all of the expense of connecting them >for a full TCP/IP connection. > >Naturally these services are hard to provide if you're selling >flat-rate access to your dialups; don't want those people sitting on >the modem all day and not getting billed for it. > Actually we are just one feature away in our terminal servers from offering free WP services. What we needed was a way to bind a user account name (without a password) called "wp" directly to a Service Access Point (SAP), call it a socket. We think this will be delivered in the Summer, it was discussed in some detail in our user group in February. I don't necessarily agree with you that is hard, based on flat rate, it depends more on the scale, you know, # of queue servers, size of the queue, inter-arrival rate, etc.... Marty