Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!fozzie!stanley From: stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: BITFTP Message-ID: <6qJa31w163w@phoenix.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 91 05:48:16 EDT Organization: Mad Scientist From: merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) > you speak like someone who has a leaf node and has no concept of what > makes a hub in uucpNET. Wrong. > you have no idea what USENET is and how it operates. I know that what we are talking about is UUCP mail and not USENET. I now know why someone mailed me the "What is USENET?" posting from news.announce.newusers. You confused him. It is interesting to see how quickly those who are objecting to file transfers by mail when the recipient is asking for the files, will mail me files from USENET without my asking. > otherwise, you are relying on the goodness of the USENET collective spirit. > abuse it, and it's gone. > that's what happened to BITFTP. I also know that BITFTP is not USENET. > participating in a cooperative network does not give the end users the right > to do ANYTHING they want. It gives them the right to do what their feed allows them to do. > it is our right to say what can and can not pass through our system. But it is not your right to say what can and cannot pass through MY system. > bummer for you, obviously the sites in your area could not work out a decent > co-operative local network, so now you have to go long distance. No. I did not look for a cooperative (free) feed because I knew that I would not be able to cooperate by feeding others. I felt strongly enough about that that I am paying money out of my own pocket for something I probably could have gotten for free. If, at some time in the future, I can afford the resources (I am not an organization made up of a bunch of lawyers) to become a feed, I would look for a free one. If that isn't being cooperative enough to suit you, well, tough. > that $900 does not get split amongst all of the systems world wide who > store and forward your traffic. I am one hop from the Internet. There is no store and forward. There is nobody to pay storage fees to (that I am not already paying). If it is correct to be able to anonymous ftp if I were directly on the Internet, then it is just as correct to pass the same traffic over the Internet in mail form. In either case, the traffic flows over the Internet. It does NOT come through lsuc, so lsuc has no right to tell me that I am abusing uupsi. > but you can request multi-megabyte messages which may traverse unwilling > systems. Not via BITFTP. Nor via any of the other mailservers I know of. Uupsi is the ONLY UUCP system my mail passes through, and they are quite willing. > as you say, you cannot predict the routing of mail. i cannot post a public > notice that lsuc does not do MBAS traffic and expect the rest of the net > to adhere to that. You CAN predict the routing of mail in UUCP land. It is called a bangpath. I can force UUCP mail to travel any specific route I want. All you have to do is get those who want to use MBAS to put explicit return addresses that avoid your system. > > UUCPing anything from anywhere but uupsi is tieing up slower UUCP > >resources to the benefit of faster Internet ones. This is not a good > >tradeoff. > > assuming you have a direct connection to PSI (or uunet or other commercial > USENET vendors). Since I have a connection to PSI, I think that that is a pretty good assumption. There are alot of people who have a connection like mine. > they tend to think that co-operation is a good thing. So do I. > they like the idea that they can get free access to the net so long as they > are reasonable about it. Define reasonable. My feed tells me what it thinks is reasonable, and that is the definition I use. > are you saying that we should only connect to commercial vendors who are > equipped to deal with any amount of mail traffic? I did not say that. I did not say anything like that. > i would think that thousands of sites would disagree with you. And since I didn't say that, and don't believe it anyway, then they wouldn't be disagreeing with me. In later articles, same author: > your whim and desire have an impact on all users on USENET. And you still haven't figured out the difference between USENET and UUCP. > you advocate use of BITFTP. > we consider BITFTP as abuse. The mere use of BITFTP is not abuse. Making 60Mb of mail pass through your system is, according to you, abuse. When I make 60Mb of mail pass through your system, you can accuse me of abuse. Until then, it is still a lie. > [ oh, no! geoff, you have been accused of posting a falsehood about someone > on the net. better hope Mr. Stanley doesn't know John Palmer, or he'll > have private detectives following you and try to have you committed to > an asylum. 8^) ] > > [ Mr. Stanley, if you don't know what the above reference is to, you don't > have enough background to be debating USENET quasi-policy ] If you don't have enough background to be able to differentiate USENET and UUCP mail, you don't have enough background to be debating UUCP policy. [ BTW, I halfway believe that JP and KPD are the same people. I have never seen them together at the same time. And maybe PT, too.] > > Why do you take it upon yourself to speak for all "me"s? If none of > >the "me"s who have handled my mail have complained what makes you think > >that you have the right to decide for them that I am abusing the system? > > you are in a minority, where you are paying for your feed and have some > feeling that you can dump on your feed when something goes wrong. or that > you can demand a level of service because you laid cash out. > > most sites on USENET have free feeds and are dependent on the generosity of > the net in general. That still doesn't tell me why you think you are speaking for all 'me's. > >> *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). > > > > And I already pay for this myself, with my machine, my modem, my phone > >bill, and my time. > > what about the machines/modems/phonebills of systems beyond you and PSI? What about them? You already said that I wasn't expected to pay YOU or my upstream admins. Now you EXPECT me to pay. You are making this sound more and more commercial all the time. > Mr. Stanley, Ontario is a big place. no one has posted on their behalf. They certainly have. I have been told, in no uncertain terms, that Ontario's opinion about my not being able to access information that was available before is 'tough'. That is speaking FOR Ontario. > i referenced some problems the ontario uucp community was having, but i did > not say i was speaking for all of them. This generic 'we' crap is clouding things up pretty well. > > They set up ftp because they are thinking Internet first, not > >thinking internet because they set up ftp. They think internet, then > > i assume they in this case is the designers of the internet. No. 'They' refers to the people who set up an anonymous ftp site. All along, this part of the conversation has been about setting up anonymous ftp sites and why they don't set up anon-uucp at the same time. > since when is the internet and USENET new? You weren't talking about the Internet and USENET. You were talking about BITFTP. Since you object to the word "new", here it is again, just as valid: > >The fact that a system has problems is not proof by itself that that > >system is not viable nor worthwhile. > Mr. Stanley, please move this to rec.autos, thanx You brought up the automobiles, Jim. Remember your "unsafe when hit at more than 55" car? And, from the same author: > Marty from PSI, writes: >> I kind of doubt if anyone said that a telnet'able resource could >> be available through ftp. I think we know the difference between >> telnet and ftp. >> >> Marty >> ----------- > another example of Mr. Stanley's lack of knowledge. Nothing in my posting said anything about a telnet'able resource being available through ftp. I said that I know exactly what PSI's answer to a request from a UUCP customer for material available over ftp would be, because they gave the same answer when a UUCP customer asked about accessing material available only through telnet. Not accessing ftp from telnet, nor vice versa. Now, let's give it a break, ok Jim? You aren't going to convince me that BITFTP is an abuse of the net as a whole, and I am not going to convince you to solve your problems with your users by working with your users. You aren't going to convince me that file transfers via mail are, by default, a bad thing, and I can't convince you that not every user of BITFTP was abusing the net. The last insult was yours. That should be sufficient.