QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/tcp/940182.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 34KB

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 04:30:01 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V94 #182
To: tcp-group-digest


TCP-Group Digest            Wed, 24 Aug 94       Volume 94 : Issue  182

Today's Topics:
                             CIX (2 msgs)
             CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange  (7 msgs)
        Computers, ethernet and lightning protection (2 msgs)
                        Dos Computers (2 msgs)
                           Enough (2 msgs)
                            Enough (fwd)
                         KISS packet driver ?
                         Mail Delivery Status
                             Strange HELO
                          Strange HELO (fwd)
                               Testing

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>.
Subscription requests to <[e-mail]>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 12:34:08 PDT
From: "Roy Engehausen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: CIX
To: [e-mail]

Let's not start the CIX debate here too.  There are enough groups
doing this already.  Suffice to say that CIX is NOT a trade-group
interested in furthering the industry as a whole but is a business
whose aim it is to further the interests of its members.

Roy

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 17:42:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: DJ Gregor <[e-mail]>
Subject: CIX
To: [e-mail] (TCP Group)

> Let's not start the CIX debate here too.  There are enough groups
> doing this already.  Suffice to say that CIX is NOT a trade-group
> interested in furthering the industry as a whole but is a business
> whose aim it is to further the interests of its members.

I think we should end the CIX debate also.  Last time I checked, this
group was for discussion of TCP/IP as it relates to amateur radio, which
there has been a shortage of lately.

-DJ, N8QLB
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 10:31:22 -0400
From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <[e-mail]>
Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange
To: [e-mail]

> While we're on this subject of the desirability of everything talking to
> everything, I would like to raise the issue of the Commercial Internet
> Exchange, CIX, pronounced "kicks."
>
> CIX was originally created as a consortium of Internet access providers who
> would route among themselves, thus bypassing the famous NSF-Net Acceptable Use
> Policy restrictrictions on commercial use of the Internet.  On July 14, the CIX
> Board of Directors voted to enforce routing restrictions against non-members of
> CIX.  The requirement for membership in CIX, basically, is that you have to pay
> them $7,500 per year or $750 per month, plus additional fees in some cases.

Let me comment on this CIX issue, which I'm real disappointed to see
brought out and misunderstood in this forum as well.  The company that
I work for, UUNET Technologies, operates Alternet, a commercial,
public IP network service.  You can subscribe to it and get connected
to the Internet.  We are also one of the founding members of the CIX.
On July 14, the CIX didn't change any policy; they voted to simply
*enforce* the terms and conditions which CIX members have
contractually agreed to.  They also decided to *lower* the CIX
membership fee.

[...]

>
>
> In my opinion, this seems like a return to the early days of telephone service,
> where each telephone company refused to allow its subscribers to call the
> subscribers of a competing telephone service without payment of a fee.  The
> government finally stepped in to put a stop to that, for obvious reasons, and
> it looks like we might have to go through a similar period of chaos soon on the
> Internet.

Actually, one of the intents of the CIX was to have a facility for
multiple IP network service providers exchange traffic without any
"settlements", which is where one carrier reimburses another based on
the volume of traffic.  This settlement model is one that the existing
telephone system uses, and may thought that this would be a bad thing.

So this organization was formed which you could become a member of.
It had well defined policies and offered a service: settlement free
exchange amongst its members.  There was a specific routing policy
enforced by the CIX router which allowed routes to be exchanged
between each member which connected to the router, or who's traffic
was transited to the router by another CIX member.

> I am not sure what to make of this change in CIX policy.  It certainly seems to
> me to have all of the trappings of a "combination in restraint of trade,"
> although applying such a principle to the Internet may prove to be a daunting
> prospect.  My guess is that CIX and its members are going to be sued through
> the floor if they actually try to implement this, with claims starting at
> breach of contract and working their way up to antitrust.

Pardon me, but this is just plain bullshit.  The policy of the CIX has
not changed - they have only chosen to actually enforce the policy
which each member contractually agreed to when they joined.

Further, there is no "restraint of trade" because there are many, many
other points of interconnection between carriers.  Alternet *also*
connects to many of these (probably more than most others).  No one
forces any particular service provider to join they CIX - it is simply
an easy way to get traffic to a bunch of other service providers.

> What seems clear is that we may shortly have two separate and disconnected
> Internets, one comprised of those CIX members and their subscribers, and one
> consisting of everybody else.  Subscribers to one will have no connectivity
> with the other, and vice versa.  My understanding is that several major
> providers, such as JvNC Net, will be boycotting CIX.

A provider is free to connect to any other Internet service provider
at will.  For instance, UUNET Techologies also helped found MAE-EAST,
which is a interconnection point in the Washington, DC area based on a
metro-area Ethernet technology.  There are perhaps a dozen Internet
Service Providers which connect to MAE-EAST, which is by definition a
policy-free interconnection service.  That is, each ISP make
bi-lateral agreements with each other povider on which routes it will
exchange with each other ISP.  The routes we don't get from the CIX,
we'll get over MAE-East.  In fact, we prefer the routes on MAE-East
because the path is shorter and higher performance.

We also have a 10MB/s connection with Sesquinet in Texax, a DS3
(45Mb/s) connection with NEARNET in the Boston area, and are spinning
up 45 MB/s SMDS connections in the Washington DC and SF Bay Area which
will also be used for exchanging traffic with other providers.

There are plenty of alternatives - they just cost money.  If non-CIX
members were allowed to send traffic through the CIX routers, why
would anyone join the CIX, and who would pay for the Cisco 7000 router
(about $45K) and to maintain the hardware and administer the box?  The
CIX is a "club".  If you join, you get to use the facilities, and if
you don't, you can't.  This seems fair to me.  One of the "services"
of the CIX is that you can easily exchange traffic with all other CIX
members - this is probably cheaper than running a seperate T1 line to
each one of them.

If a provider disagrees with the policies of the CIX, they by all
means don't have to join, but they have to make their own arrangements
for getting traffic to other Internet Service Providers.

Louis A. Mamakos, WA3YMH                      [e-mail]
UUNET Technologies, Inc.                      uunet!louie
3110 Fairview Park Drive., Suite 570          Voice: [phone]
Falls Church, Va 22042                        Fax:   [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 12:33:41 -0400
From: Raul Deluth Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange
To: [e-mail]

Ultimately, the problem with the CIX "routing restraint" policy is
this:  it's completely ambiguous.

[1] Net topology is amorphous.  It's not clear that these routing
policies have any meaning for the long haul.  [Given the nature of the
internet, it won't be completely clear who the policies will affect
until after the policies are implemented -- and perhaps not even
then.]

[2] The very concept of "selling IP transit" is cloudy.  If someone
decides to provide ip services through a firewall (e.g. for pop mail
clients and nothing else, or perhaps also WWW traffic but with a
couple gigabytes of local cache), this policy becomes meaningless --
and thus a blunt weapon in the hands of whoever is administering
enforcement.

[3] It's not clear what traffic is/isn't member traffic -- does this
policy mean that to go across the CIX router in california either the
source or destination address of a packet must be a CIX member?  Or is
this policy based on traffic content?

[4] It's not clear what relevance this policy has towards traffic
originating in other economic systems (e.g. the European community).

It's pretty clear that this policy is a reflection of the NSF's
acceptable use policy -- which is on the way out (and note that the
CIX is intended to be one of the mechanisms for getting rid of the
effects of this policy).

I imagine that the policy will be fixed once some of the problems
become apparent.  Possible scenarios include:

(*) policy is enforced unevenly -- CIX is hit with anti-trust action,
end of story.

(*) policy is enforced evenly -- CIX becomes a minor aspect of net
traffic and thus irrelevant.

(*) policy is not enforced at all -- end of story.

Ultimately, the decision is up to CIX.  The big immediate problem is
FUD.

--
Raul D. Miller           n =: p*q             NB. 9<##:##:n [.large prime p, q
<[e-mail]>  y =: n&|&(*&x)^:e 1  NB. -.1 e.e e.&factors<:p,q [.e<n
                         NB.  public e, n, y
                         x -: n&|&(*&y)^:d 1  NB. 1=(d*e)+.p*&<:q

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 17:29:00 -0000
From: [e-mail] (Mike Bilow)
Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange
To: [e-mail]

 LAM> There are plenty of alternatives - they just cost money.  If non-CIX
 LAM> members were allowed to send traffic through the CIX routers, why
 LAM> would anyone join the CIX, and who would pay for the Cisco 7000 router
 LAM> (about $45K) and to maintain the hardware and administer the box?  The
 LAM> CIX is a "club".  If you join, you get to use the facilities, and if
 LAM> you don't, you can't.  This seems fair to me.  One of the "services"
 LAM> of the CIX is that you can easily exchange traffic with all other CIX
 LAM> members - this is probably cheaper than running a seperate T1 line to
 LAM> each one of them.

 LAM> If a provider disagrees with the policies of the CIX, they by all
 LAM> means don't have to join, but they have to make their own arrangements
 LAM> for getting traffic to other Internet Service Providers.

You could call OPEC and the KKK "clubs," too, but the issue is what their
activities are.

If the Internet operated on a telephone network model, where there was a
unified hub that actually was the center of the net, then it might make sense
to say that subnet A and subnet B should not be allowed to route to each other
through their connections to subnet M and subnet N, where A is connected to M,
M is connected to N, and N is connected to B.  This would be using the services
of M and N, including the link, to provide services of no real benefit to them.

As I read the rules, a service provider who is a member of CIX is prohibited
from providing routing services to any non-CIX member who provides routing
services to others.  This is a completely different issue: CIX is not only
prohibiting the use of its own router facilities, but the router facilities of
its members.  It is THIS distinction which raises, in my opinion, the issue of
restraint of trade.  CIX is operating as a classical cartel, where you must
promise in order to join that you will do business only with other CIX members.

For example, consider service providers M, who is a member of CIX, and service
provider A, who is not a CIX member.  The CIX rules, as I read them, say that M
is prohibited from allowing A to buy a private wire to M in order to connect
the customers of A and of M, since this would be providing "IP transit."  In
fact, the rules say, as I read them, that A could buy a private wire to M if
and only if A also paid the CIX membership fee.

If my interpretation is wrong about this, and I am misreading the CIX rules,
please tell me so.

-- Mike

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 14:32:37 -0400
From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <[e-mail]>
Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange
To: [e-mail]

The very first thing is that you have to realize that there is no
"center of the Internet".  There is just a web of connectivity between
various networks and carriers.  This is the reality of the situation,
and not what NSF or the US government would have you believe.

> As I read the rules, a service provider who is a member of CIX is prohibited
> from providing routing services to any non-CIX member who provides routing
> services to others.  This is a completely different issue: CIX is not only
> prohibiting the use of its own router facilities, but the router facilities of
> its members.  It is THIS distinction which raises, in my opinion, the issue of
> restraint of trade.  CIX is operating as a classical cartel, where you must
> promise in order to join that you will do business only with other CIX members.

The CIX agreement specifies what the CIX will do for its members.
It's members are free to go off and do other private arrangments as
they wish.  In one way of thinking, the CIX provides a connectivity
service - if you want to use it, you must join the CIX.

> For example, consider service providers M, who is a member of CIX, and service
> provider A, who is not a CIX member.  The CIX rules, as I read them, say that M
> is prohibited from allowing A to buy a private wire to M in order to connect
> the customers of A and of M, since this would be providing "IP transit."  In
> fact, the rules say, as I read them, that A could buy a private wire to M if
> and only if A also paid the CIX membership fee.

This is incorrect.  We have private interconnections to other service
providers, be they CIX members or not.  The issue is that just because
you, M, have a private interconnect with A, doesn't mean that the CIX
will pass traffic to or from A.

This whole issue, vastly blown out of proportion, is that the CIX
would like some say over who uses their router.  I cannot see why
anyone could rationally disagree with this.  It costs real money to
buy the boxes and lease the lines - if you want to use the facilities
it only seems fair that you pay for them.

Nothing is stopping some other enterprising souls from establishing
their own interconnection points, and selling it as a service.  This
is what MFS has done with MAE-EAST by selling a reasonably cheap (~$2K
month) 10Mb/s connection for service providers.

Louis A. Mamakos, WA3YMH                      [e-mail]
UUNET Technologies, Inc.                      uunet!louie
3110 Fairview Park Drive., Suite 570          Voice: [phone]
Falls Church, Va 22042                        Fax:   [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 14:56:29 -0400
From: "C. Harald Koch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange
To: [e-mail]

>  As I read the rules, a service provider who is a member of CIX is prohibited
>  from providing routing services to any non-CIX member who provides routing
>  services to others.

*sigh. You've been in the middle of the discussions on com-priv; surely you
would have gotten this straight by now.

You are prohibited from offering CIX routing (i.e. transit to/through the
CIX router) to other IP transit providers. That doesn't mean you cannot
connect to other transit providers; you just can't offer them access
to/through the CIX router.

You are also perfectly free to make your own interconnect arrangements with
other service providers (even other CIX members). For example, Alternet,
PSI, and Sprint all have peering arrangements with each other that don't
involve the CIX router, even though all are CIX members.

This is now clearly stated in the documents available at www.cix.org and
ftp.cix.org. Please stop spreading mis-information, especially when this
isn't the forum for it.

--
C. Harald Koch            | University of Toronto Computing & Communications
[e-mail]           | Network & Operations Services
[phone] (voice)   | External Network Facilities Managment
[phone] (fax)     | 4 Bancroft Ave., Rm 101, Toronto, ON M5S 1C1

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 11:56:53 -0700
From: Phil Karn <[e-mail]>
Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange
To: [e-mail]

>Pardon me, but this is just plain bullshit.  The policy of the CIX has
>not changed - they have only chosen to actually enforce the policy
>which each member contractually agreed to when they joined.

I still find this policy disappointing, especially because it seems to
discourage the provision of end-user dialup SLIP/PPP services. I've
wondered for some time why these always seem to be priced above "dumb
terminal" access to a network-connected public-access UNIX system,
even when the user doesn't want to use any of the resources of the
public UNIX system.

But all this will soon become academic.  Once we widely deploy the IP
security protocol that's being developed in the IETF IPSEC group,
third party traffic restrictions imposed by Internet service providers
will all become impossible to enforce, at least by traffic monitoring.

With IPSEC's encrypted encapsulation scheme, there is simply no way to
determine whether or not two hosts using it are communicating between
themselves or are actually relaying traffic on behalf of other hosts.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 20:51:00 -0000
From: [e-mail] (Mike Bilow)
Subject: CIX: Commercial Internet Exchange
To: [e-mail]

On 94 Aug 23 at 18:32, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:

 LAM> The very first thing is that you have to realize that
 LAM> there is no "center of the Internet".  There is just a web
 LAM> of connectivity between various networks and carriers.
 LAM> This is the reality of the situation, and not what NSF or
 LAM> the US government would have you believe.

I never claimed that the Internet had a "center."  In fact, part of what
bothers me about the CIX proposal is the apparent attempt to create such a
"center."

 LAM> The CIX agreement specifies what the CIX will do for its
 LAM> members. It's members are free to go off and do other
 LAM> private arrangments as they wish.  In one way of thinking,
 LAM> the CIX provides a connectivity service - if you want to
 LAM> use it, you must join the CIX.

This is simply not how I read the CIX rules, and, if it is a misunderstanding,
then it is a widespread, if not nearly universal, one.

 LAM> This is incorrect.  We have private interconnections to
 LAM> other service providers, be they CIX members or not.  The
 LAM> issue is that just because you, M, have a private
 LAM> interconnect with A, doesn't mean that the CIX will pass
 LAM> traffic to or from A.

 LAM> This whole issue, vastly blown out of proportion, is that
 LAM> the CIX would like some say over who uses their router.  I
 LAM> cannot see why anyone could rationally disagree with this.
 LAM> It costs real money to buy the boxes and lease the lines -
 LAM> if you want to use the facilities it only seems fair that
 LAM> you pay for them.

No one would disagree with the idea of CIX charging for traffic to cross the
common CIX router, but the policy statements I have seen from CIX give the
impression, at least to me, that CIX considers the CIX cloud which is subject
to restrictions to include all CIX members.  I read the rules as an attempt to
make the Internet a kind of "closed shop," where CIX members refuse to work
with other service providers who are not CIX members.  I don't think that the
Teamsters are a good model upon which to build the Internet, obviously.

 LAM> Nothing is stopping some other enterprising souls from
 LAM> establishing their own interconnection points, and selling
 LAM> it as a service.  This is what MFS has done with MAE-EAST
 LAM> by selling a reasonably cheap (~$2K month) 10Mb/s
 LAM> connection for service providers.

I am not familiar with the MAE-EAST system.  My understanding of the CIX rules
is based, quite simply, on reading them.  Perhaps the rules are badly written,
and terms such as "CIX Routing Services" need to be more clearly defined.

At best, accepting your interpretation, I see a lot of the traditional low-cost
access points into the Internet, usually piggybacked onto commercial or
educational accounts, drying up.  The CIX rules prohibit, for example, a couple
of small business entities getting together and sharing a Class C subnet, with
one routing for the other.  There are a lot of 5-10 host LANs operating under
such co-operative agreements, and now these sorts of systems are going to run
afoul of the CIX rules.

I think that CIX may also kill the "freenet" movement, which has traditionally
been piggybacked on university wires.  Last I heard, the Ocean State (Rhode
Island) Freenet was buying service at cost from Brown University, which buys
service from NEARNET, which is in CIX.  In order to comply with CIX rules, both
Brown and Ocean State Freenet must each cough up the CIX membership fee, which
means that the cost of operation has just increased by $15,000 -- for a service
that is not supposed to charge anyone anything.

I think that the regulation of traffic based on content is fundamentally
wrong-headed.  If CIX wants to charge for anything, then they should throw in
the towel and charge for bandwidth.  All real money costs on the Internet are
ultimately a reflection of bandwidth, which has unambiguous physical
definition.  I simply don't understand why, in the above example, it should
cost $15,000 more to connect people who are not Brown students and faculty
through the same wire and across the same bandwidth.  CIX would be a lot easier
to understand if they said: we have a router, and we are willing to sell you a
56 kbps or 1.544 Mbps or 10 Mbps slot on it for such-and-such amount of money,
and you can do what you want with it once you buy it.

-- Mike


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 15:34:01 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Austen)
Subject: Computers, ethernet and lightning protection
To: [e-mail]

I want to hook up two computers via ethernet.  One of the computers is
hooked to antennas via radios (it is running a version of NOS; the CPU and
operating system used are irrelevant to this discussion) and is therefore a
good candidate for a lightning hit.  There is some lightning protection on
the antenna cables but it is probably not sufficient to survive a direct
hit; I accept the risk that the NOS computer is exposed to.  How can I hook
the computers together via ethernet while providing a high degree of
lightning protection for the second computer?  Fiber optic ethernet seems
like the best solution except that the cost appears to be on the order of
$500 for a pair of transceivers.  Are there good quality lightning
protectors for 10BASE2 or 10BASE-T ethernet cables?  Where can I find them?

Jeff, k9ja

+-+
Jeffrey Austen       |  Tennessee Technological University
[e-mail]   |  Box 5004
[phone]       |  Cookeville Tennessee 38505   U.S.A.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 20:24:01 -0400
From: Jim De Arras <[e-mail]>
Subject: Computers, ethernet and lightning protection
To: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Austen)

> I want to hook up two computers via ethernet.  One of the computers is
> hooked to antennas via radios (it is running a version of NOS; the CPU and
> operating system used are irrelevant to this discussion) and is therefore a
> good candidate for a lightning hit.  There is some lightning protection on
> the antenna cables but it is probably not sufficient to survive a direct
> hit; I accept the risk that the NOS computer is exposed to.  How can I hook
> the computers together via ethernet while providing a high degree of
> lightning protection for the second computer?  Fiber optic ethernet seems
> like the best solution except that the cost appears to be on the order of
> $500 for a pair of transceivers.  Are there good quality lightning
> protectors for 10BASE2 or 10BASE-T ethernet cables?  Where can I find them?
>
> Jeff, k9ja

I have a similar setup, using RG-58 (Thinnet).  I had a high quality
lightning arrestor the tower end of the circuit.  I also had inadequate tower
grounding on my 180 foot tower.  It took a direct hit a few years back.  The
NOS computer was toast, arcing all over all boards, and the cabinet.  The
ethernet arrestor blew-up.  Enough energy made it to the cable and down the
500 feet to my home to take out 3 3C503 cards, a Mac thinnet transceiver, a
ethernet to appletalk box, and the high dollar eithernet card in my Router.
I think the one arrestor kept the damage down to the ethernet cards only, but
if I were starting from scratch now, I'd spend the bucks for the fiber optic
link!

BTW, I have arrestors at BOTH ends of that 500 foot run, now, and have
properly grounded that tower.  I suspect just the second lightning arrestor
alone would've prevented all the damage caused outside the shack.

Jim WA4ONG

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 08:36:43 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Brian Kantor)
Subject: Dos Computers
To: [e-mail]

In article <Pine.3.89.9408221446.A17697-0100000@kazak> [e-mail] (Klarsen) writes:
>    Yes I wish I could spare $500 for a big HD. My wife Juanita says
>"how big is my HD?". I say 120 mbyte. She says what the Hell do I need
>1000 mbytes for? Discussion closed....hi

Oh, then its your *WIFE* that needs to be upgraded.  That's achievable; go
find a new one that's technically competent and enjoys computing.  Why'd you
pick this one if it's so obviously unsuited to your lifestyle?
    - Brian

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 09:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dos Computers
To: Klarsen <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 22 Aug 1994, Klarsen wrote:

> > In other words, "stop experimenting, because I {cannot afford, can't be
> > bothered} to keep up."

>     I didn't say that Lyndon, you did.

No, YOU said it. I just cut out a lot of the verbiage.

>     Where have you been for the past 40 years?  The way things are
> now the experts who happen to be hams hand down nice things like NOS to
> us so we can play tcp/ip. But they have a family to feed so they sell 60
> hours a week of their time to a business. Are you so above the rest of
> the world you don't see this?

As I said previously, you argument boils down to: please stop
experimenting because I cannot afford to keep up.

Having kids was your choice. Messing with radios was my choice. I'm not
going to let your kids slow down my hobby.

--lyndon

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 12:57:09 PST
From: "schoon" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Enough
To: [e-mail]

>>Brian wrote:
>>And might I remind YOU that this is an internet discussion list for >people
>>actively involved in advanced amateur radio networking. >Emotions fly high at
>>times among creative people; strong language is >occasionally necessary to
>>express strong emotions.

>May I point out that there are no age restrictions on who may subscribe to
>Internet etc. Whilst I appreciate there are far worse corners of the Internet
>there can be no real justification for some of the language I have seen.

>I suppose I will receive all sorts of language in flames for this one.

>[e-mail]


And how many eight year olds subscribe to this group?? So far this arguement of
"My toy is better than your toy" has been rather dull. But alas I'll still read
this group!


Mark

[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 15:26:45 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Brian Kantor)
Subject: Enough
To: [e-mail]

>>May I point out that there are no age restrictions on who may subscribe

Children are not welcome on this discussion group.  If your mental age
is insufficient to withstand the rigours of discussions hereupon, you
are encouraged to leave.

Gentlemen, this group's discussions are straying far from its charter
as a place where people who are actively working on advanced amateur
radio networking are wont to gather.

Is it time to acknowledge that no one is doing anything useful and
shut down the list?  If we're just wasting time, let's adjourn.
    - Brian

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 10:11:45 -0400
From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Enough (fwd)
To: Martin Lines <[e-mail]>

> Brian wrote:
> >And might I remind YOU that this is an internet discussion list for
> >people actively involved in advanced amateur radio networking.
> >Emotions fly high at times among creative people; strong language is
> >occasionally necessary to express strong emotions.
>
> May I point out that there are no age restrictions on who may subscribe
> to Internet etc. Whilst I appreciate there are far worse corners of the
> Internet there can be no real justification for some of the language I
> have seen.

There is no "Internet" thing that you subscribe to.  The Internet is a
way to move bags of bits around between mutually cooperating systems
and networks.  You things that vary between large commerical systems
like America Online and Compuserv, down to the UNIX and Windows boxes
that I have at home, all on this "Internet" thing.

It's like saying there are no age restrictions on who may subscribe to
"books", or who is allowed to use a phone.  It really doesn't make any
sense - there is no policy enforced by the infrastructure.

I'm painfully aware of all this because I work for an Internet Service
Provider that will be pleased to sell anyone a pipe to the Internet.

Louis A. Mamakos, WA3YMH                      [e-mail]
UUNET Technologies, Inc.                      uunet!louie
3110 Fairview Park Drive., Suite 570          Voice: [phone]
Falls Church, Va 22042                        Fax:   [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 22:38:34 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Mark Frey)
Subject: KISS packet driver ?
To: [e-mail]

A few months ago, someone mentioned they were developing a KISS
packet driver, and had a primitive version working.

Unfortunately, I failed to note the author's name or e-mail at the
time :-(   Does anyone here know where I can reach this guy, or
anyone else developing a KISS packet driver ?

73,

Mark Frey
Internet: [e-mail]
AMPRnet:  [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 1994 03:55:03 GMT
From: "Central Postmaster" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mail Delivery Status
 ***** Error in Mail Delivery *****

E0100-ZIPSCA003E-ZIP PACKET GLOBAL ERROR

 Recipients:

 [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 20:08:51 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Strange HELO
To: [e-mail]

While watching the trace of my local SMTP gateway, I noticed that it often
starts the transfer with 'EHLO' instead of the usual 'HELO'.  My JNOS
system (1.10f) responds with 'command unknown' and my SMTP partner then
sends the correct 'HELO' and everything works well from there.

Can anyone tell me what is going on?

73 de VE7MDL           ....Erik.
(Sysop, ve7mdl.ampr.org)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 15:34:10 +1000 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (michael butler)
Subject: Strange HELO (fwd)
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] writes:

> While watching the trace of my local SMTP gateway, I noticed that it often
> starts the transfer with 'EHLO' instead of the usual 'HELO'.

The remote mailer (most likely smail 3.1 w/patches) is looking to start an
'enhanced' SMTP session. Possibilities are transfer batching, mime-support
and size restriction.

> My JNOS system (1.10f) responds with 'command unknown' and my SMTP partner
> then sends the correct 'HELO' and everything works well from there.

smail does it differently to sendmail 8.6.x .. sendmail specifically looks
for the answering system to post 'esmtp spoken here' where smail just uses a
trial and error approach.

    michael

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 1994 08:44:10 -0400
From: [e-mail] (David W. Crawford)
Subject: Testing
To: [e-mail]

This is a test to see if I can post to panix.mlist.tcp.
I'm just exploring the 'anything thats legal' user contract/
info document.

Don Samek may wish to look carefully at the path and headers
of this message, since he's  so interested my ability to post to
panix.staff.*.
--
David Crawford     [e-mail]   [e-mail]
"I always come to a full *and* complete stop at stop signs, unless
I'm in a hurry in which case I just come to a complete stop."

------------------------------

End of TCP-Group Digest V94 #182
******************************