Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dartvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!dartvax!davidk From: davidk@dartvax.UUCP (David C. Kovar) Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: Overloading the UUCP network. (Keep this message away from flammables.) Message-ID: <742@dartvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 18-Feb-84 15:18:44 EST Article-I.D.: dartvax.742 Posted: Sat Feb 18 15:18:44 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Feb-84 03:09:25 EST References: <290@hou3c.UUCP> Organization: Dartmouth College Lines: 59 You suggest that Lauren go off and start up his own PCP network so that UUCP will not become anymore bogged down than it is. You also state that most of your problems with UUCP involve hosts going down, causing you to reroute via other sites or networks. No where do you mention that the problems with UUCP involve overuse. Now I agree that UUCP handles one hell of a lot of traffic, and I also agree that adding PC sites will add more of a load to the net, but I fail to agree that switching the PC's to another net will solve the problem. First off, I am going to send news and mail even if I do not have UUCP running on my IBM XT. With it, I can compose on my own system and free ports up on the colleges system. Without it, I will be composing and thinking on the college's VAX and tying up their resources. Either way, that article/mail is going out on the net. So in this case, I see a PLUS in releasing UUCP for the PC, not a minus. The net load stays about the same and my host system gets me off on my own. Secondly, the only people who can tie into an existing nodes will have to request permission to do so from that site. Same process that you have to go through for an account. This means that every PC owner and their brother will not go out an join the net, they can't get at it. They will all be paying for their own phone calls, not the rest of the network. (I already ventured that their postings to the net would stay the same, keeping that cost to the net even.) Now each site might not want 40 PC UUCP sites calling in, but they can deal with that on their own, that will not affect the net as a whole. But, we will have a large number of new site names, and that must be dealt with. And I also would not want to route my mail/news through a PC site. To this end, we might add a 'pc' to the site name, indicating that it was a leaf and should not be included in internal paths. This would also help keep the site names unique. I wrap this up with one question: Who owns the net? If you do not want to subsidize IBM, do not permit PC UUCP's at your site. Each particular 'you' out there can refuse to subsidize in this way but I would be rather upset if you decided to prevent me from posting just because I own a IBM and you get paid $30K a year to hack UNIX. If worst comes to worst, I'll go buy PC/IX and then be a 'real' site. And by damned, if you do not like that, I can probably manage to trade my car in on a MicroVax. If you want to keep VAX sites off of the net, I wish you luck. Sorry about the flame, all. -- David C. Kovar Usenet: {linus | decvax | cornell}!dartvax!davidk ARPA: kovar@MIT-ML (Infrequent) U.S. Snail HB 3140 Dartmouth College Hanover NH 03755 "The difficult we did yesterday, the impossible we are doing now."