Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aocgl!tmanos
From: tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Cut off AT&T? (Was: The death of USENET)
Message-ID: <27.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jun 88 10:37:03 GMT
References: <10373@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Organization: Alpha Omega Consulting Group, LTD,  Roselle, IL
Lines: 72

In article <10373@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
   (Steven Bellovin) writes:
> Let me try to offer a brief summary on what's going on at AT&T Bell
> Laboratories regarding Usenet.  This is not an official statement by
> the company, but I was involved in many of the discussions that lead
> up to the new policy.
>
> In a sentence, what triggered all this was that top management (*very*
> top management) noticed Usenet, and wondered if it was a Bad Thing.
> Bad Things, in corporate America, are those that cost money, and it's
> fairly obvious that Usenet has that potential in a lot of ways.
> ..... <text deleted>
> The price of official support, though, is official control, and top
> management did not feel that we should pay for carrying other folks'
> traffic.  This is especially true when you realize that our gateways
> would then compete with our own commercial service, ATTMAIL.  Hence
> the decision to stop forwarding 3rd-party mail.
>
> Note what we're not doing:
>
> 	a) We're not cutting off email contacts to the outside world.
> ..... <text deleted>

In other words, at least the way I interpret it, one of the things that
"*very* top management" at AT&T is trying to do is eliminate the costs
associated with forwarding E-mail on the UUCP network that originates
from sites outside of AT&T and is destined for sites outside of AT&T.
They feel that AT&T should only have to pay the costs of E-mail within
the AT&T sub-net, or E-mail originating from or destined to an internal
AT&T site.  They should not have to pay the cost of carrying E-mail from
Joe_Schmoe@non.AT&T.site.a to Compu_Nerd@non.AT&T.site.b.  If people
want to send E-mail from site.a to site.b, where neither site is within
the AT&T sub-net, then those people should either: a) find another route
that *doesn't* go through AT&T, or b) they can always use ATTMAIL :-).
After all, AT&T already pays enough money to handle just the volume of
mail that has some "useful" purpose to AT&T sites/personnel.
Besides, the UUCP network is well connected enough  to be able to
find alternate routings.  Well, that seems *reasonable* enough.

With such being the case, then it would appear to me to be equally as
reasonable for *non-AT&T* sites to NOT pass through mail originating
from within the AT&T sub-net, or destined to the AT&T sub-net.  After
all, the non-AT&T sites already pay enough money to handle all of the
E-mail that is *not* useful to AT&T.  Why should they be expected to
bear the cost of handling AT&T's business?  It serves no purpose to
them, does it?  Besides, AT&T *should be* well connected enough to be
able to find alternate routings to non-AT&T sites.  And, if all else
fails, they can always *use* ATTMAIL.  Well, that seems *reasonable*
enough. :-)

Please understand, I think that *both* approaches are *equally*
unreasonable.  I don't think that it is fair for AT&T to expect non-AT&T
sites to forward their mail, if they won't do the same for others.  On
the other hand, I don't think that it is fair to expect AT&T to have to
shoulder the very heavy burden that has been placed on them for some
time now, just because they happen to be well connected and have smart
routers.  People at non-AT&T sites should make a CONCERTED EFFORT to
both a) find *some* paths that don't route via AT&T, and b) install
their *own* smart routers (and keep *current* UUCP maps :-) ).  At the
same time, it would be easy enough for AT&T to greatly reduce it's load
by simply adjusting the "cost" value in their map entries.  Get rid of
all of those DEDICATED, HOURLY/4, DEMAND, etc. entries, and replace them
with something slightly less tempting to use.  Pathalias/routers won't
know if you're lying :-).

I only hope that *somebody* at AT&T sees this, and it gives them cause
to think a little bit harder/longer/deeper about what they are going to
do.  If not, then I *do* hope that all non-AT&T sites stop handling
AT&T's E-mail.  What's fair is fair.  (At least *I* think it's fair :-)

-Ted
Ted Manos   tmanos@aocgl.{COM,UUCP,UU.NET}  or ...!{uunet,mcdchg}!aocgl!tmanos