Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aocgl!tmanos
From: tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Cut off AT&T? (Was: The death of USENET)
Message-ID: <32.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jun 88 22:00:17 GMT
References: <2761@ttrdc.UUCP>
Organization: Alpha Omega Consulting Group, LTD,  Roselle, IL
Lines: 31

In article <2761@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes:
> The ONLY THING that AT&T is planning to stop carrying, as best as I have heard
> (there has been traffic on internal AT&T groups about this too) is MAIL
> BETWEEN TWO NON-AT&T SITES.  NETNEWS WILL CONTINUE TO BE CARRIED.  The
> analogous thing for the net to do would be to decline to carry AT&T's
> mail BETWEEN TWO AT&T SITES.  (AT&T doesn't, and shouldn't, generate
> site-to-site mail with such routings anyhow.)  So think about it a while
> before you get sore and start planning "revenge."

If you had read my prior postings on the subject a little more carefully,
you would have seen that this is *EXACTLY* what I (and several others)
had proposed.  I don't think that *any* of us (certainly not me) had even
mentioned cutting off AT&T from news feeds...*just* e-mail pass-through.
And there, I *did* mean *any* e-mail pass-through.  A lot of effect it
would have on AT&T to stop passing through e-mail only between two AT&T
sites! :^)  If AT&T won't pass our mail (unless it is of some benefit to
them to do so), give me a good reason why we (meaning non-AT&T sites)
should continue to pass their mail (unless it is of some benefit to us).

Also, if you had read my postings without your AT&T blinders on, you would
have seen that I am *not* sore at AT&T, nor am I trying to get revenge.
For me personally, I doubt *very* seriously that AT&T'd dropping mail
pass-through will effect me at all.  I have *never* knowingly sent *any*
mail through an AT&T site, or expected them to route my mail for me.  Not
that I have anything against sending mail via an AT&T site.  If I need a
smart router to do my work for me, I send it via my uunet link, which I
pay for, and thus am entitled to use.  All I have proposed was that AT&T
should expect to get the same treatment from the UUCP networking community
at large as it is giving them.  If that's being vengeful, and maybe it is
but I don't feel that way, then I guess I was "seeking revenge".
Ted Manos   tmanos@aocgl.{COM,UUCP,UU.NET}  or ...!{uunet,mcdchg}!aocgl!tmanos