Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!maytag!xenitec!iguana!merce
From: merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: BITFTP grief!
Message-ID: <1991May20.180333.16263@iguana.uucp>
Organization: Ed (the iguana) Memorial Society
References: <m0jefag-0001ToC@lsuc.lsuc.on.ca> <yi0821w163w@phoenix.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 91 18:03:33 GMT

In article <yi0821w163w@phoenix.com> stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes:
>smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) writes:
>> If the people who had ordered huge VMS files or gcc/gas had asked us first,
>> we would have pointed them at the University of Toronto or taken steps to
>> uucp the files directly to them.
>> 
>> Instead, they (like many proponents of BITFTP) argue that BITFTP is an
>> essential service, and that intermediate sites for some reason ought to be
>> able to handle 16 Mbytes worth of extra data, just go ahead and grab files
>> willy-nilly.  
>
>   I have the ls-lR from my feed. If it is there, I ask for it from
>there. None of the stuff I have asked for has been. If you have a
>problem with sites downstream from you, deal with the sites downstream
>from you. Don't kill a service that IS being used responsibly by many
>sites just because you can't handle your downstream sites. 

this is all very well and good if you really don't care who you connect to,
but we tend to like connectivity, and wish to continue it.

you speak like someone who has a leaf node and has no concept of what
makes a hub in uucpNET.

most hubs do this as a public service, of their own free will.

there are only a miniscule number of sites out there who look at being a
mail hub as a business.

what you keep saying is that we should get out of the way.

you have no idea what USENET is and how it operates.

if you want reliable mail transport, which will service your every whim,
i suggest you kick out the appropriate cash to get a direct link
to the internet.

otherwise, you are relying on the goodness of the USENET collective spirit.

abuse it, and it's gone.

that's what happened to BITFTP.

they did not cut it back because I said so.

they cut it back because they have had enough complaints.

mine was just the last one.

if it wasn't mine, it would have been someone else's.

>> | email is for messaging, not file transfers.
>> 
>> Unless _everyone_ along the way gives a direct OK to a file transfer.
>
>   Agreeing to route mail is approval to route mail. 

participating in a cooperative network does not give the end users the right
to do ANYTHING they want.

i will not route alt.sex.pictures. (i know, that's news, same concept)
downstream sites can not demand that i feed it.

it is our right to say what can and can not pass through our system.

>> | talk to the sites in Ontario, Canada, who are possibly going to lose all
>> | internet connectivity partially due to increased mail volume (ie. BITFTP).
>> 
>> Alternatively, talk to the sites in Ontario face the prospect of paying
>> $500/a to our Regional Internet (ONet) if they want to send or receive mail
>> across it.  The policy is justified by pointing out that the unconnected
>
>   And I will be paying $900 this year. Cry for Ontario. And $US are bigger
>than $CAN.

bummer for you, obviously the sites in your area could not work out a decent
co-operative local network, so now you have to go long distance.

or was it that no one in your area would give a feed to you?

>> No, John Stanley, the problem here is that people do not think of the
>> consequences of ordering huge files across a store-and-forward network of
>> UUCP sites (and an often costly one, too) and even if they do, they don't
>
>   No, Sean Doran, the problem was that Mr. Mercer's disks filled up and
>he lost mail and news. If the store-and-forward network did not hose
>disks and drop news and mail, the consequences would be much less severe,
>and would fall under 'cost of doing business'. 
>
>   The other problem here is that nobody wants the hassle of managing
>their users, they want to take the easy way out by stopping EVERYONE
>from doing what they won't tell their users to stop.

you are not EVERYONE.  if you were, we would be in sorry shape for sure.

i have gotten support from many hub sysadmins.

i cannot control the users on my nieghbor's systems or on their nieghbor's
systems.  i could cut them off, but that would be like killing off a service
because of a few bad apples.

sound familiar?

>> A simple note to the postmaster of every mail-handling site between you and
>> BITFTP saying: ``I would like to order file xyz from BITFTP.  It will
>> probably travel back through you.  Is that OK?'' is a good idea.  
>
>   And just who are the mail handling sites between me and bitftp? The
>only one I know for sure is uupsi, and I have a contract with them that
>says unlimited news and mail. I cannot predict who will handle the mail
>once PSI puts it on the Internet. How am I supposed to contact them?

this is exactly my point.

you have no idea whose systems your traffic is going to pass through.

you say you pay $900 a month for a connection.

that $900 does not get split amongst all of the systems world wide who
store and forward your traffic.

>   Second, if a site agrees to route mail, they have agreed to route
>mail. If they have problems with mail I send, I expect that they will
>contact me about it and we can go from there. Since I cannot at any
>time predict all possible permutations of mail routing, I cannot send
>these simple notes. 

but you can request multi-megabyte messages which may traverse unwilling
systems.

as you say, you cannot predict the routing of mail.  i cannot post a public
notice that lsuc does not do MBAS traffic and expect the rest of the net
to adhere to that.

(neither can the other sysadmins who cast the evil eye on MBAS)

>> It's an
>> especially good idea, given that one of those postmasters might have a copy
>> that doesn't have to be chopped up and mailed to you, but can be uucped
>> directly.
>
>   UUCPing anything from anywhere but uupsi is tieing up slower UUCP
>resources to the benefit of faster Internet ones. This is not a good
>tradeoff. 

assuming you have a direct connection to PSI (or uunet or other commercial
USENET vendors).

some people are a little radical.

they tend to think that co-operation is a good thing.

they like the idea that they can get free access to the net so long as they
are reasonable about it.

are you saying that we should only connect to commercial vendors who are
equipped to deal with any amount of mail traffic?

i would think that thousands of sites would disagree with you.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   work: jim@lsuc.on.ca  home: merce@iguana.uucp  +1 519 570-3467 ]
[                "Clickity-Click, Barba-Trick" - The Barbapapas               ]
