Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!elroy!cit-vax!ucla-cs!corwyn!casey From: casey@corwyn.cognet.ucla.edu (Casey Leedom) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: The Eternal Youth of USENET (was: Re: The rebirth of USENET) Message-ID: <13626@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Date: 16 Jun 88 22:18:36 GMT References: <585@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU Reply-To: casey@corwyn.UUCP (Casey Leedom) Organization: none Lines: 29 In article > webber@athos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: > > > In article <585@cbnews.ATT.COM> , mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) writes: > > Mail into and out of AT&T through the "att" gateway will continue. > > "att" is serving as a professionally run replacement for ihnp4 and > > cbosgd. > > Would it be accurate to say that att now views itself as a very big > leaf node? It will be interesting to see how the net deals with a > leaf that generates as much traffic as att. That's certainly what it seems they want to become. And while I feel the it is justifiable to be a leaf node if a node doesn't have a lot of resources (i.e. a recipient of net charity) and/or simply doesn't generate much in the way of network load, I can't see the justification for AT&T trying to become a giant leaf node. If AT&T feels that they are being over-burdened with third party mail traffic, etc. and also want to remain a cooperative member of the UUCP community, they should simply cut back their connections. With their current plan, it would be my suggestion that everyone uniformly disconnect from AT&T sites and force them to use uunet just like any other site that wants to be a leaf node. I'd also suggest that we ask AT&T for the licensing for their third party software filter, invert the test for AT&T sites and have everyone install it. Casey