Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!uupsi!fozzie!stanley From: stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: BITFTP grief! Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 May 91 18:49:19 EDT References: Organization: Mad Scientist peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) write > > Agreeing to route mail is approval to route mail. > > This is the sort of logic that leads to UUPSI changing their contracts, to > EUNET and JANET blocking outside mail, to sites dropping off the net. The > net is a co-operative venture. This means that to make it work you have to > co-operate. Co-operate means more then just running the right software, it > means co-ordination, it means compromise, it means consideration. Ok. Now tell me how asking uupsi, BEFORE I signed the contract, what their limitations were on mail and news, is being inconsiderate. Tell me what compromise I need to make when they tell me 'unlimited'. > Cooperation. Coordination. Compromise. Consideration. Tell me why I need to coordinate, compromise, or consider lsuc re: the mail volume from this site when absolutely NONE of it passes anywhere near lsuc. > > Nobody wants to handle this question. > > Why don't you pay attention. Ed and I have independently proposed a solution. > Ed is implementing it. If you had paid attention, you would also note that I have suggested a solution that allows individual sites to make individual decisions concerning how much and what traffic they will carry. It allows the currently operating MBAS to keep operating, while allowing lsuc to kill whatever mail it wants. > Think of it as pest control. You're saying that we should just put up with > the mosquitos. I am saying that the MBAS are not the problem. If the requests from users at a site are inappropriate, deal with the users and not the MBAS. > Other people are advocating massive use of DDT. A better > solution is to introduce a competing species that doesn't bite. UUCP accessib > remote FTP servers... everyone wins. That's right. I agree. BITFTP was one such beast. Asking that it close down because a site doesn't want to handle the traffic it can generate (when ASKED to generate that traffic) is spanking the wrong end of the baby.