[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re[2]: 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" <mbutter@tower.clark.net> 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++ 
mbutter@tower.clark.net    |UL++++$ P+>++++ L++>++++ 3 N+++ E--- K-- W--- 
gaummb@fnma.com            |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 francis@tigana.microserve.com wrote:
> At 4:33 AM 9.01.96, John Strauss wrote: 
> >Tanner,
> >
> >        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| 
> |francis@tigana.microserve.com |============================================| 
> |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