Xref: utzoo rec.humor.d:1243 news.misc:2189 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!eda!jim From: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) Newsgroups: rec.humor.d,news.misc Subject: Re: USENET and Internet (was: Re: Yes, I can sell a jokebook via USENET. Message-ID: <380@eda.com> Date: 30 Nov 88 15:33:08 GMT References: <2391@looking.UUCP> <79090@sun.uucp> <1057@ncar.ucar.edu> <376@eda.com> <79319@sun.uucp> Reply-To: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) Organization: EDA Systems,Inc. Santa Clara, CA Lines: 40 [I wrote:] | >What does it matter if USENET violates Internet rules? Or are we to follow | >other networks in complying with Internet rules because it is easier | >than not complying? In article <79319@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: | Here's the (potential) problem. A large amount of USENET data is slogged | from place to place via NNTP over the Internet. Because of that, it's | reasonable to assume that the Internet would require that data to conform to | it's rules -- which, in a number of cases, it doesn't. [rather complete expansion of this argument deleted] Well, I asked for intelligent arguments, and I got them. Don't you get a nice feeling when you have a mailbox full of intelligent mail? I had not realised the extent to which nntp had replaced the traditional backbone. Thats what can happen when you're off the net for a year or so. Chuq's article, and most of the letters, recalled to me a year ago when article propogation was much slower. So is this what happened to Stargate? People jumped on the free lunch of Internet, thus giving up the cheap lunch of Stargate. I think it's a pity it happened, but I agree, since "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch", the *cost* of submitting to the strictures of the Internet must be accepted. jim -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer" #define truth "I speak for myself" #define result "variable"