Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!zben
From: zben@umd5.UUCP (Ben Cranston)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.adm
Subject: Re: The most expensive bug in the history of Usenet?
Message-ID: <963@umd5.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-May-86 13:59:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: umd5.963
Posted: Fri May 16 13:59:02 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 18-May-86 15:23:48 EDT
References: <221@epimass.UUCP> <553@gould9.UUCP> <3505@bbncc5.UUCP>
Reply-To: zben@umd5.UUCP (Ben Cranston)
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Md, CSC, College Park, Md
Lines: 18
Xref: linus net.news:4024 net.news.adm:681
Summary: Can USENET protect itself against sabotage disguised as sys test?

This brings up an interesting point...  Suppose I am a commercial entity,
providing a service that competes directly with a service of USENET.  Many
potential customers may refuse my services based on the fact that they
already receive the services in question from USENET.

If my research lab gets a machine and connects it to USENET, then sabotages
the performance of the network under the guise of system testing, then
perhaps some of those customers could be persuaded to buy my services 
after all.

This is *NOT* an accusation against HP or ATT or anybody else who may
periodically accidently flood the net with random strangeness.  It is just
a random speculation triggered by the recent stuff from HP...

-- 
"We're taught to cherish what we have   |          Ben Cranston
 by what we have no longer..."          |          zben@umd2.umd.edu
                          ...{seismo!umcp-cs,ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!zben