[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: Our pal, Netcom
Is there a reason why we should not do this?
Alaric Luther - Luther@infodata.com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Our pal, Netcom
Author: "Mario M. Butter" <firstname.lastname@example.org> at Internet
Date: 1/13/96 11:30 PM
I can take over the list right now. I have the software setup (I run 4 other
lists), and I don't get charged for mail. I even maintain a message archive
for the other lists, which can be done for Atlantia-L.
And I'm *in* Atlantia, also.
Mario M. Butter |GAT d++$ H>++ s:+ !g !p au+ a? w+++ v++(-) C++
email@example.com |UL++++$ P+>++++ L++>++++ 3 N+++ E--- K-- W---
firstname.lastname@example.org |M-- V-- -po+ Y+ t++ 5++ jx R++ G' tv+++ b+++ !D
#include <std_disclaimer.h>|B-- e* u*@ h---- f* r+++ !n y** GeekCode v2.1
On Thu, 11 Jan 1996 email@example.com wrote:
> At 4:33 AM 9.01.96, John Strauss wrote:
> > I think that atlantia-l is a fine and wonderful thing.
> >But it really does seem as if Netcom is choking it.
> > I request that you look for a different home for the list.
> The ISP where I have this PPP service will host a list for $15/mo plus a
> $15 setup. That's for 5000 outgoing messages/month; each additional 1000
> msgs is an extra $2. Anybody know how many people are on the list? ('cause
> the # of msgs each of us sees will be multiplied by the # of recipients)
> As for how to pay for it--take up a collection? (Me, I'd gladly give a
> month or two's worth.) If we collected enough to pay for it for the first
> year or two, it'd be stable enough to count on. (Semi-silly idea: manifest
> the Merry Rose Tavern at an event, as a fundraiser. It'd certainly be a
> stark contrast to sca-east, where the concept of naming the list at all was
> roundly shouted down. :-)
> Or there may well be cheaper/better options. (Maybe we'd prefer to
> patronize an ISP somewhere in Atlantia. :-) But, if we're willing to pay,
> we ought to be able to find something better than Netcom (which isn't
> charging at all, right?).
> >Messages from netcom accounts are distributed with no real delay;
> For what it's worth, this is probably a side effect, not deliberate
> sabotage on Netcom's part. Quick burst of geekery (non-geeks can stop
> reading; there's nothing interesting left in this message): if sendmail
> can't deliver a message immediately, it gets queued. This means that, if
> the system handling mail is overloaded--say, it can handle only N messages
> per hour, and it's getting 2*N--then the queue will keep growing until the
> load drops (in this case, it'll grow by N messages per hour). But mail
> from Netcom users probably gets processed on the machine they're sending
> from, rather than going through the same machine that handles all the
> inbound mail. <rummage in DNS and SMTP...yup, I think that's right> Since
> the user machines are less loaded (they'd have to be, or Netcom would lose
> their customers), mail from them goes straight out.
> To make things more confusing, the queue is serviced in reverse order.
> Strange, but there is a good reason: if your mail is bogging down, you want
> complaints to the postmaster to take priority over the normal traffic that
> preceded them.
> |John (Francis) Stracke | http://www.io.com/~francis | PGP key on Web|
> |firstname.lastname@example.org |============================================|
> |Power Mac w/PPP | Do not suspect that I am not human. |
> |My Mac, my opinions. | |
> Francois Thibault AFP of PA! Shire of the Blak Rose (East)
> Argent, a cock gules, and, on a chief sable, three standing stones argent