Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!killer!mjbtn!root
From: root@mjbtn.UUCP (Mark J. Bailey)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Cut off AT&T? (Was: The death of USENET)
Summary: I wonder if AT&T officials thought of this?  Or do they care?
Message-ID: <270@mjbtn.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jun 88 18:32:58 GMT
References: <10373@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <27.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP>
Lines: 84

In article <27.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP>, tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) writes:
> 
> 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. :-)
> 

I agree!  I wonder (well, I am sure) if that all of the meetings that
took place to arrive at the decision that they made, somebody would have
had to have brought this up.  And a little thinking makes it sound quite
obvious.  While on the one hand, AT&T does have a commercial service, and
they don't want to compete with it, they do have subscribers (and happy
ones I am sure) that pay for it.  But there is a portion of traffic that
goes thru UUCP that is equally important (as well as news) that DOES bear
costs on non-AT&T sites.  If AT&T uses the non-AT&T sites to pass their
traffic, are they not getting it for free if for the same channel, they
don't offset the costs for non-AT&T sites by bearing costs themselves of
3rd party traffic?  Of course, this is old news, so old, some people seem
to have forgotten about it.  While I am not a majorly connected site, I
could be one day.  Is AT&T going to adjust their paths files to not use
my site?  That is a cumbersome task - when you think of EVERY site.  In 
such a case, it would not bother me, as long as I could do the same with
them.  They may have a commercial service to protect.  That is fine and
dandy.  But if I won't be able to share their media with a message in 
transit, why should I share mine.  It is the "you scratch my back, and
I'll scratch yours that makes this net so fascinating.  Sharing.  Some
of us can share more than others.  Those of us with less, would probably
share more if we had it.  At least I would.

> 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 :-).

This sounds like a much nicer alternative.  As smart-mailers infiltrate
the net, it is pathalias that does a lot of the routing.  Even while some
people try to hard code a path, some sites along the way always reroute
mail according to pathalias.  AT&T does list enourmous connectivity.  Codas
has been on the way out for months now, and I still can't get it out of
some of my frequently used paths (even using the -d codas option to pathalias).
If AT&T raised the PRICE of their link, then over time, pathalias would by
nature reduce routing through AT&T.  That does not require any work other
than (well in general) editting d.usa.oh.1.  Simple?  At least in principal,
it makes sense.

> 
> 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 :-)
> 

True!  The Usenet population is not dumb.  Some won't care, others aren't
in a position to be involved, BUT others will definitely catch on.  I don't
think anyone wants to fight or argue with AT&T.  There are always effects
to causes, and sometimes they aren't clear up front.  Hind sight IS 20/20.
If the people at AT&T haven't got an answer for this one, they need to come
up with one, as the relation between AT&T and Usenet has been a fruitful one
in the past, and will hopefully continue to be so.  While on the books, 
management sees a lot of money going into it, are they not benefitting from
the rest of Usenet's collective knowledge?  Is the cost of 3rd party mail
too much for that?

Mark.

-- 
Mark J. Bailey                                    "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear!"
USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37130 ___________________________
VOICE:  +1 615 893 4450 / +1 615 896 4153          |         JobSoft
UUCP:   ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!root     | Design & Development Co.
FIDO:   Mark Bailey at Net/Node 1:116/12           |  Murfreesboro, TN  USA