Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@topaz.rutgers.edu (Webber)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Of Paranoia and of Internet (Was: Re: EndOfSourcesList ...)
Message-ID: <13647@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Mon, 3-Aug-87 03:11:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.13647
Posted: Mon Aug  3 03:11:20 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Aug-87 00:47:30 EDT
References: <267@brandx.UUCP> <7200004@iaoobelix.UUCP> <289@brandx.rutgers.edu> <3632@ncoast.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 39
Summary: short reply

In article <3632@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes:
> As quoted from <301@brandx.rutgers.edu> by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber):
> | Doubtless paranoia is not the appropriate clinical term, but I would
> | hardly call people who threaten to sue if they transfer messages that
> | they don't want due to their own laziness as `realistic.'  I hardly
> +---------------
> 
> I take it, then, that you believe you have a God-given right to send stuff
> anywhere and have EVERYONE forward it.  Tell it to the folks who run the IBM
> VNET.

I take it that any net that transmits messages as boring as ibm pc
binaries has no right to complain about the quality of the content of
any other messages.  You know, I always find it interesting that
everyone wants everyone else to forward everything so that they can
pick and chose the parts that interest just them.


[... skipping usual silliness about who pays for what -- rest assured
that brandon does not pay the cost of distributing his pet binaries either.]

> | My observation of common usage is that Internet refers to any site
> | that can be reached via a mail address that can be parsed according to
> | the rules set down in the appropriate RFCs.  One of the points of the
> +---------------
> 
> The full name for the Internet is the "U.S. Department of Defense Internet".
> In other words, DoD owns it, and therefore Bob Webber can't change the defi-
> nition to suit his tastes.  If you disagree, argue it with the DoD, since
> it's their term.


DoD does not `own' any `name' (I bet they haven't even applied for a
trademark).  Any way, I see that you couldn't find an RFC or any other
`official' document to back up your position, so you simply decided to
repeat it in case people would start to agree if you just said it
often enough.

--- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)