Xref: utzoo comp.mail.misc:5514 comp.mail.uucp:6619 news.admin:14541
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!clout!chinet!les
From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp,news.admin
Subject: Re: BITFTP grief!
Message-ID: <1991May21.025032.25282@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 21 May 91 02:50:32 GMT
References: <1991May19.133104.11572@balkan.TNT.COM> <1991May19.194044.24840@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991May20.180914.26084@chinacat.unicom.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Lines: 17

In article <1991May20.180914.26084@chinacat.unicom.com> chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes:
> [900 blocking]
>Therefore, there are folks out there willing to pay for a call to uunet
>to grab stuff who can't.

Maybe not on the spur of the moment, but they can always get a subscription
and the associated access through direct LD, 800 numbers, telenet,
Compuserve's network, and whatever else they happen to use.

>But that's still all beside the point - I don't
>think that justifies BITFTP or mail servers.

Why - do you think mail should only be delivered when it suits the
carrier's whims?

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us