Xref: utzoo news.admin:2702 comp.mail.uucp:1373
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-vax!mit-eddie!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!porthos.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: The rebirth of USENET
Message-ID: <Jun.17.17.33.38.1988.1198@porthos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 17 Jun 88 21:33:38 GMT
References: <585@cbnews.ATT.COM> <1100@bellboy.UUCP> <3095@palo-alto.DEC.COM>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 38

In article <3095@palo-alto.DEC.COM>, vixie@palo-alto.DEC.COM (Paul Vixie) writes:
> ...
> There are actually going to be three separate 'att' machines in three
> different cities.  And mail sent x!att!y will work, even if x and y
> are both non-AT&T sites.  I think AT&T's plan is basically to disallow
> mail along x!att!another-att!yet-another-att!y, that is, they'd rather
> not have their internal network used for non-AT&T traffic.
> ...
> I don't think AT&T will only speak to their neighbors to send and receive
> AT&T traffic.  They could do this, but it doesn't seem likely to me.
> It's more likely that 'att' will still handle thousands of messages
> per day of non-AT&T traffic, picking them up from direct UUCP neighbors
> and sending them to others.

You know, that made so much sense that I went back and reread the
news.announce.important announcement from AT&T to see if everyone else
(myself included) had been misreading it.

<Path: aramis.rutgers.edu!rutgers!mtunx!att!cblpf!ihnp4!attnews
<From: attnews@ihnp4.att.com (Harold Jackson)
<Sender: mark@cblpf.ATT.COM
<...
<This overload has to be rectified.  Management has decided to
<discontinue passing third party email through AT&T machines. ...
<This cutoff applies to ihnp4, cbosgd, and att.  It will probably affect
<other AT&T machines within a year.
<IF YOU LIST IHNP4, CBOSGD, OR ATT AS SMART-HOST, OR IN YOUR
</USR/LIB/NEWS/PATHS FILE, YOU SHOULD CHANGE IT *NOW* TO SOME OTHER
<MACHINE.
<While we are phasing out third party pass-through as much as possible,
<we will continue to accept email for AT&T machines, and to
<pass outgoing email from AT&T to other systems. 

While the rest could probably be stretched to your scenerio, the stuff
in all caps seems to indicate that nonatt-oneatt-nonatt is not going
to be permitted.

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