Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!indri!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!crdgw1!ge-dab!ge-rtp!edison!rja
From: rja@edison.GE.COM (rja)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Size of the Internet vs. UUCP net
Message-ID: <1943@edison.GE.COM>
Date: 5 May 89 12:04:53 GMT
References: <1989Apr24.203137.5835@utzoo.uucp> <163@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> <655@dtscp1.UUCP>
Organization: GE-Fanuc North America
Lines: 22

In article <655@dtscp1.UUCP>, scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) writes:

> So now the 20,000 sites who cannot (for one reason or another) be on
> the Internet are footnotes?  I'd like to thank you for making us
> "feel good" because we do not have the resorces (read: money) to be on
> the Internet!  

I don't know that it is either expensive or difficult to have a registered
domain-name and indirect Internet access: it's called UUNET and it is
a bargain.  I understand that they will not only help you get registered,
but also act as your Internet forwarder, and get files via 'ftp' and
uucp them to your site upon request all as part of the inexpensive
service.

I simply cannot think of a reason that a site in the US/Canada "cannot"
be connected to the Internet directly or indirectly.  It is more accurate
to say that such sites _choose_ not to.  It is their business whether
they choose to, but it is a _choice_.

Personally, I'd be much happier if those sites using the fake domain
of '.UUCP' would get a legal domain name.  It's not hard or costly
and it would make their mail and everyone else's work better.