ARPANET Mailing Lists and Usenet Newsgroups
             Creating an Open and Scientific Process
            for Technology Development and Diffusion
                         by Ronda Hauben
                         rh120@columbia.edu
Introduction
     In an article in the journal "The Information Society",
Luciano Floridi from Wolfson College at Oxford, notes the
importance of the Internet and how it has generated an excitement
and promise for the future. Floridi writes:
     [L]ast year the Internet finally appeared to the general
     public as the most revolutionary phenomenon since the
     invention of telephones, though in this case Time missed the
     opportunity to elect the Internet Man of the Year.(1)
     Floridi, contrasts the significance of the new development
represented by the Internet with the relative lack of scholarly
study and knowledge about its development:
     A whole population of several million people interacts
     by means of the global network. It is the most educated
     intellectual community that ever appeared on earth, a global
     academy that, like a unique Leibnizian mind, thinks always.
     The Internet is a completely new world, about which we seem
     to know very little....its appearance has found most of us,
     and especially the intellectual community, thoroughly
     unprepared.
     However, to "know"  something it is helpful to look at its
early development, as that is when its form and principles are
most clearly articulated.
     The foundation for the Internet was set by the development
of the ARPANET(b. 1969) and Usenet(b. 1979), which were connected
to each other in the early 1980s. This paper will examine some of
the early computer conferencing research work to link those on
different computers or using different operating systems on
the ARPANET and then on Usenet. It will explore how the foundation
was set to promote computer facilitated communication, which was some
of the scientific and collaborative work which made the Internet
possible. There will be an effort to quote early pioneers when
possible to give an indication of the process as well as the
result of their work.
                             Part I
              Support for a Scientific Methodology
     Writing in the 1960s, the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas
described a scientific methodology developed by the U.S. Air
Force to solve difficult technological problems. He outlines the
process of communication established between those contractors
who would work on a problem and the Air Force personnel
involved, the importance placed on communication to identify the
precise nature of the problem, and then the combining of practice
and theory to develop a methodology to solve the problem.(2)
    A similar kind of collaborative communication process was developed
via the early mailing list MsgGroup on the ARPANET and this process
helped to make it possible to develop and expand the ARPANET into
the Internet.
ARPA and the ARPANET
     When the Soviet Union lauched Sputnik I, the world's first
man man satellite on October 4, 1957, they took the world by
surprise. In the U.S., President Eisenhower summoned scientists
to provide advice to the White House on how to advance U.S.
science and technical developments. Believing that the
competition within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) was a
problem that had to be solved if the U.S. was to advance in its
ability to do forefront scientific and technological development,
Secretary of Defense Neil McElroy created a new agency, apart
from the three existing branches of the services. This new
agency, the Advanced Research and Projects Agency (ARPA) was to
provide support for advanced space research. By the early 1960's,
ARPA recognized the need to expand its scope, and J.C.R.
Licklider was brought in to head a new office that would take on
research in computer science. Licklider served as the first head
of the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) at ARPA
from 1962 to 1964. The earliest work of the IPTO was to fund
research in the time-sharing of computers, to make interactive
computing available in a way not possible with the batch operated
computers common at the time.(3)
     By the late 1960's however, time sharing of computers had
developed and there were different computer time sharing systems
around the U.S. Those at ARPA began to envision a linking up of
these different systems so that the resources could be shared
and so those using different computer hardware and software would
be able to communicate with each other.(4) Also, the work of
pioneers like Paul Baran at RAND in the U.S. and Donald W. Davies
working in the United Kingdom, indicated that a more economical
form of data transmission, i.e. packet switching, would provide
an appropriate technology for data transmission. Recognizing the
need to do research in creating a computer data network that
would make it possible to share resources among researchers doing
work on different hardware and software platforms, a contract was
awarded to BBN to begin the construction of a subnetwork that would
connect various ARPA contractors at universities and other sites
with ARPA contracts. The new network became known as the ARPANET.
Those connected to the ARPANET grew rapidly and by the mid 1970's
there was the recognition that a new form of communication
had developed on the ARPANET called electronic mail or more
commonly, email.
MsgGroup Begins
     In a message submitted to the Msggroup mailing list dated June
7 1975, Steve Walker, of ARPA (IPTO) and Net Manager of the
ARPANET(5) describes a proposal for communication research on the
early ARPANET. He writes that he is "seeking to establish a group
of people concerned with message processing" in order to "develop
a sense of what is mandatory, what is nice, and what is not
desirable." He notes, "We have a lot of experience with lots of
services and should be able to collect our thoughts on the
matter."
      The methodology he proposes, however, is of particular
importance.  He is encouraging the creation of a new form of
computer conferencing to be developed on the early ARPANET. "My
goal," he writes,  "at present is not to establish 'another
committee' but to see if dialogue can develop over the net." He
notes that there is probably something less formal already
occurring, but he wants to broaden it to be able to include more
of those who could make a contribution. Participation will be
encouraged, but it is voluntary. "I do not wish to force anyone to
participate," he explains, "but I strongly urge anyone with
comments (positive or negative) to toss them in."
      Also, the form of participation was to be open ended, rather
than requiring particular kinds of contribution. "While
supporting philosophical discussions," he writes, "I like very
much the specifics of...evaluation....Can we try to do this," he
asks, promising that "the results may surprise many of us."
      He requests that the participants "encourage a FORUM-type
set up if it's not too difficult to set up, realizing that many
(myself included) will have little time to contribute." Though
he recognizes that such sporatic participation may be thought
to fragment the group, he proposed they should be made and
will prove to be a contribution.
      "I've asked Dave Farber to maintain a list of Message Group
participants," he continues, noting that Dave Farber, then on the
faculty at the University of California Irvine, a participant
on the ARPANET, would help facilitate participation in the online
forum Walker was proposing. Extending his invitation to newcomers
to be full participants without feeling they  have to gather any
particular background, he explains, "those who don't wish to have
their message files filled with possible `junk mail' should feel
free to withdraw." But he expresses the hope that it will be possible
"from all this to develop a long term strategy for where message services
should go on the ARPAnet and indeed in the DoD." And Walker ends his
message by encouraging participation, "Let's have at it."
     The mid 1970's was a period of change in developing the
usefulness of computer mail on the ARPANET. Previous to 1975, the
creation of programs making email possible on the ARPANET was
more of an informal undertaking, according to a study of ARPANET
email posted to MsgGroup by Raymond R. Panko(6). Panko notes the
earliest work in developing email capabilities grew up on the
earliest time sharing systems funded by ARPA in the early 1960s.
"But the value of computer mail had become obvious to ARPA by the
beginning of 1975," he writes how ARPA had, like a number of
other...organizations, had begun to use computer mail for its
bread and butter communication and had become aware that a
relatively mature communication medium was becoming available.
It was against this background of increasing interest by ARPA in
email that Steve Walker issued the invitation to take part
in an online conference to develop a computer conferencing system.
    Farber responded to Walker's invitation, "I too second the motion
 of Steve to Let's have at it."(7) Farber promises to maintain a file
of correspondence for those who participate in case they miss any of
the messages or do "not feel like making like a file clerk."
      Those involved agree to accept the challenge of exploring
how to create a network conferencing system using ARPAnet
communication. In considering the difficulties of using such
technology during this period in the mid 1970s, David Crocker, at
the University of Southern California presented his evaluation of
three possible programs that those on MsgGroup could use to form
their online conference. One of the programs was FORUM, a
conferencing system developed under DoD funding. Crocker explains
that this conferencing system "has a long start-up curve and requires
that all paticipants have access to the same machine."(7) Another
proposed conferencing program TCTalk, Crocker notes, "requires
that all have operating access to the operating system Tenex,"
which was one of the operating systems used by some of those on
the ARPANET.(8)
     Since those on the ARPAnet were using a variety of different
computers and several different operating systems, Crocker
believed that neither a program dependent upon a single type of
computer nor one requiring a particular operating system would be
appropriate. Instead he explained that there was a program being
used to send email on the ARPANET (i.e. Net Mail) that was
already being used by those on the ARPAnet and it made
communication between users with diverse computer systems and
operating systems possible. Crocker also noted some of the other
advantages of Net Mail. He wrote(9):
     Use of Net Mail a) is extrememly convenient for most, if not
     all, of us, since we already exercise it for other
     activities; b) allows passive observation of the dialogue,
     rather than forcing everyone to explicitly catch up on
     recent comments....; c) mail is easily deleted and so "junk"
     mail is not really a serious problem. Most, if not all of us,
     have mail reading systems which allow a "menu" review of mail,
     prior to reading the contents.
     Proposing that Net Mail will best satisfy the aims of the
research, he writes: "I have spent the better part of this spring
looking at our teleconferencing capabilities (as part of a
seminar...) and as a result, suggest we continue to use Network
mail as our communication tool, rather than using TCTALK or
FORUM."
     Listing the participants in MsgGroup at this early period
and the sites where they have their computer accounts(10), Farber
identifies Burchfiel, Myer and Gilbert from Bolt Beranek and
Newman, the Cambridge, MA contractor who created the IMP subnetwork
for the ARPANET. He lists Tasker, McLinden, Walker, Farber, Stefferud,
Ellis, Kirstein, Iseli, Dave Crocker, and Paul Baran at ISI at the
University of Southern California.  At Office-1, he lists Uhlig and Watson,
at MIT-DMS, Vezza, and at Harvard-10, Mealy.
      In a message noting the promising potential of this
new form of computer networking communication, another early
MsgGroup participant(11), Tasker writes, "Sitting here in the
offices of a potential military user...I am extremely gratified
and excited to see the msg group interacting and that those
interactions appear to be converging around real capabilities
that I think can be sold to the operational military guy. A scant
three or four months ago I never would have even hoped for the
current state of affairs and the direction it indicates."
     In a similar vein, Ron Uhlig at Office 1 expressed his
enthusiastic support for MsgGroup. Describing the informal
project he was working on for the Army Materiel Command
(AMC), he wrote(12):
     For  those  of  you  unfamiliar  with  our  "experiment"
     in Army Materiel Command, we have  been  using OFFICE 1 for
     communication among seven  of  the  key  managers  in  data
     processing in Army Materiel Command (AMC)....In general, we
     have  had  the  same  kind  of experience in improved
     communication that  ARPA  had  when  they  began  using a
     message system on the network. Continuing major cuts in the
     Army Materiel Command work force plus  some  fairly major
     reorganizations which are  now  being   planned   are
     leading   us  to  give  serious consideration  to  adopting
     an  on-line  computer  based message system for key managers
     throughout  the  command.  We are in the early stages of
     trying to define what such a system needs to look like....
     Since we are aiming  more  at  the informal communications
     we are not terribly concerned  with  the  DOD  traditions...
     Our primary concern is that  the  message  system  be
     easily  usable  by noncomputer science people, some of whom
     are actively hostile to computers in general.  The
     demonstrations  that  we  have  given  to  various
     noncomputer science,  non  technical  personnel  around  AMC
     have generally been well  received.  But  one  must  know
     far too much "computerese" to use any of the existing
     systems."
Elaborating on the need for online conferencing, he writes:
     We have  a  strong  need  for  teleconferencing  because
     our key managers are greatly dispersed geographically. The
     message system that we eventually  adopt  needs  a
     teleconference capability. We don't want message  handling
     and  teleconferencing  to be in two separate systems.
     Because of this we also want to make it easy in the middle
     of a message  based  teleconference  to link to a data bank
     somewhere in AMC to  pick  up information which is needed at
     that point in time. An FTP type capability, simple to use
     for the novice, would meet the need very nicely.
Concluding his comments, he promises continued feedback:
     As we get better definition  on  our requirements
     during the next few months I will  put  additional  messages
     into the network to keep you  all  current  on  our
     thinking. This  message is only intended to be introductory.(10)
     A subsequent message by Crocker suggested they ignore authentication
issues, whcih like other security issues, were considered secondary and
were avoided for the time being.(13).
     Given the current state of network/system/mail security, I
     suggest we ignore authentication issues.
     Summarizing the progress made in the first month since the
beginnings of the new form of network communication, Steve Walker
writes(14):
     The MsgGroup...was formed...by a group of interested people
     commenting on how message services should appear to users
     (as opposed to how they should function internally.) I'm
     pleased with the progress of this `conference'. I am trying
     to arrange for Stefferud to serve as a `paid' organizer so
     that the groups ramblings can come out in a coherent form. I
     would encourage your continued participation here and in
     groups such as Dave Farber's Compcom get together.
                        Part II
          Vision of New Form of Computer Communication
     Documenting the success of the work done by those on
MsgGroup and subsequent ARPANET mailing lists, a report prepared
for a technical conference in 1979 by several MsgGroup
participants, observed that there had been important advances in
email and conferencing capabilities. (15) The report explained how
these achievements are not only a natural outgrowth of technological
advances, but also the result of the convergence of communication
and computers. "In various current networks of computers," they
write, "large numbers (thousands) of individuals and agencies are
able to communicate among themselves via message exchange using
many different computers and terminals in the process." This was
not an easy feat to achieve.
     Their report notes the value to people who have access to
these computer message services (CMS). They write(16):
     Those who have access will be able to communicate through
     the CMS facilites with others who have access as the number
     of connected individuals and agencies grows, the value of
     being connected will grow....The key source of value lies in
     the range of easily addressable potential communication.
     In the development of MsgGroup conferencing efforts, several
describe the unique capabilities that a mailing list like
MsgGroup has made available to those participating.  For example,
in a post, Pickers(17) describes how a mailing list creates a
participatory process that is superior to what traditional meetings
could make possible. He writes:
     Unlike normal conferences, where there are limited
     microphones, a chairperson and where audience energy tends
     to wear down, MSGGROUP style conferencing never resolve issues
     much less adjourns. This effect follows naturally from the
     observation that every participant reenters the discussion
     by choice, perhaps following a recuperative and regenerative
     period of rest.
     Others on MsgGroup consider the problem of emotional
messages (also known as flaming). However, Gaines, in a post(18),
proposes that such problems are secondary and should be
recognized as "the price we have to pay for an open discussion
group where people are free to voice their ideas....We must
expect that this whole process produces a fair amount of
nonsense...."
Most importantly, however, he points out:
     We are feeling our way in a murky area, and have to expect
     to make mistakes. Let us judge the msggroup by the good
     ideas that surface which by the nature of the area have to
     be expected to be few and far between but worth the overhead
     of the other traffic when they arrive.
     Emphasizing the unique nature of the contributions to
MsgGroup, Charles Frankston with a login at MIT, warned that
analogies between electronic mail and telephone and paper
communications must be made very carefully. Electronic mail, he
writes(19), "is a new medium and it may not necessarily make
sense to use it in the same fashion as existing medium, any more
than it would have made sense to use telephones in precisely the
same fashion as telegraphs that preceeded them."
     Observing that "electronic mail is currently used
extensively for communications which today does go to many
recipients," he cites interoffice memos as an example.  "As a new
medium I also claim electronic mail has generated new uses not
heretofore possible, he continues, "For example, most of my use
of the medium consists of back and forth technical discussions,
often among persons widely dispersed geographically....In fact,
the great advantage of electronic mail for this sort of use, is
that it is easy to simply cc anyone I think might be interested
or have information to provide on the current topic."
     Another report, titled "The Convergence of Computing and
Telecommunications System," by Dave Farber and packet switching
pioneer Paul Baran, was posted to MsgGroup(20). Farber and Baran
were able to collaborate to write the report via the ARPANET
despite the fact they lived in geographically different regions
of the U.S. In the report, they wrote that "A major change in
computer communication is taking place....Tomorrow, computer
communication systems will be the rule for remote collaboration."
Problems and Benefits
     In their report, Farber and Baran observed that the falling
costs of computing would lead to a situation where certain
industries and institutions would feel threatened by the
"prospect of obsolescence of their present justification." One
such industry they predicted would be publishing.
     In his study of email, Panko, too, noted a similar barrier
to technological development of email and email conferencing. He
observed the inability of commercial users to recognize the
advantage of email and of the increased communication that email
and online conferencing made possible. However, both Panko's
study and the report by Farber and Baran emphasized that many
others would welcome the new forms of communication that this
convergence of computers and communication technology would make
possible. Panko pointed to the promising development represented
by the 15 million people involved with CB radio in the U.S., out
of a possible 70 million households. This promised that a warm
welcome would greet the increased ability for communication to be
made available via email and email conferencing.
Social Issues Become Important
     Panko documented how government funding of computer science
researchers to solve the problem of computer conferencing
communication across different computers and different operating
systems had yielded great social and technical benefits. He
wrote(21):
     "Historically, computer media were first extensively
     developed on the ARPANET. Anyone familiar with the Advanced
     Research Projects Agency (after whom the ARPANET is named)
     realizes that ARPA was the dominant funder of leading-edge
     computing during the 1960's. Essentially, ARPA was funding
     the community of hobby computerists par excellence. Funding
     was fat and creativity was given free reign during business
     hours. Moreover, ARPA contractors found their staffs working
     long overtime, developing space war games, stock market
     information services, and -- as noted above, computer mail
     systems. In other words, hobby computering at a grand scale
     was the original source of many advanced mail systems today.
     Computer mail had a strong hobbiest flavor in its use as
     well as in its origins. Colleagues in artificial
     intelligence, data base design, and other exotic fields used
     computer mail to build and maintain their community."
     "Furthermore," he added, "in applications where computer
teleconferencing has been successful, discussion has often been
free-wheeling and chatty. The longest conferences tend to be
breezy and rambling, yet very successful in exchanging ideas and
viewpoints...."
     Thus he noted the great stimulus given to these email
developments by the support of government financed programs.
     In their report, Farber and Baran recognize that social
questions would arise as a result of these important new
communications developments. And they realized that too little
emphasis would be given to examining the social consequences that
had to be considered to determine what the future should be for
these social developments. For example, the issue of how
decisions over the new medium would be made wasn't being given
adequate consideration.(22) "Little attention," they wrote, "is
paid to the `public interest.' In part, the term defies
definition. Is the public interest the interest of the cross-
subsidized residential telephone user? Is it the interest of a
business which faces a reduced communications bill? Is the public
interest to be viewed primarily in the short term irrespective of
long term damage to existing institutions in achieving immediate
savings."
     Summarizing the promise for the future that enhanced
communication would hold, Lauren Weinstein wrote(23):
     The whole point of Msggroup to me is that we are free to
     communicate without undue worry about costs, and to borrow a
     line from the closing episode of the `Connections' program
     from PBS, "the easier it is to communicate, the faster
     change occurs." It is this very change that is creating the
     systems, concepts and most importantly, the EXPECTATIONS of
     people for message systems of the future.
                     Part III
             Government Use at the FCC
     While the ARPANET was helping to research how ARPA would use
online communication, other government entities found it helpful
in broadening the mechanism of input into their work.
Stephen Lukasik had been a director of ARPA from 1970 until 1975.
After he left ARPA (then called DARPA), he spent some time at
government contractors Xerox and RAND. By September 1979, he
posts on MsgGroup(24):
     I recently assumed the position of Chief Scientist at the
     Federal Communications Commission in Washington.
     He notes that he is looking to fill the position of Deputy
Chief Scientist/Engineer who will assist him in directing
technical, scientific and engineering activities of his office at
the FCC. He also announces that there will be positions in a new
Technical Planning Staff within the agency. And he requests input
from those on MsgGroup.
     In October, 1979, Lukasik announced that he was to give the
keynote at the December Computer Networking Workshop at the
National Bureau of Standards (NBS).(25) "The topic will be regulation
of computer communication," he wrote. And he asks for both
questions and input into his talk. "I would be interested to know
what questions and concerns you have in this area. Your
viewpoints would also be welcome." He signed his message Steve
Lukasik, Chief Scientist, FCC, and his message included "reply
to: LUKASIK@usc-isi" so that replies could be sent to him by
email.
     In February 1981, Stefferud posted an unofficial copy of an
FCC Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to MsgGroup, though those interested
in receiving an official copy were instructed to write
MJMarcus@ISI(26). "This copy is being circulated," the message
explained, "via MsgGroup to allow individuals with ARPANET access
to comment informally on the NOI. Interested parties may file
comments on or before March 16, 1981," Stefferud noted. "You may
file informal comments by sending messages to MJMarcus@ISI. To be
considered by the FCC, your informal comment should include your
full name and U.S. Postal Service Address."
     Stefferud described how it was even possible to file
informal comments via email, "All such messages will be forwarded
to the Secretary for filing in the Docket as stated in paragraph
23 of the NOI where informal comments are solicited from
DEAF-NET users." DEAF NET was a demonstration telecommunications
network project for the deaf funded by Department of Health,
Education and Welfare funds. Questions about procedure could be
sent by email to Mike Marcus or "with MsgGroup distribution so we
may share your questions and answers."
     "Any discussion of this NOI in the regular manner of group
discussion via MsgGroup distribution," Stefferud noted, "will
also be made available to the FCC as informal public comments in
response to the NOI, and as such will be forwarded to the
Secretary for filing in the Docket."
     "This is a new kind of activity for MsgGroup," Stefferud
wrote, "and we hope that it might afford some progress in the use
of network facilties for the type of inquiry." He went on to note
that the FCC was not sponsoring his actions, but that the FCC
staff was aware of what he was doing to facilitate online input
into an FCC process.
     "The use of MsgGroup is not sponsored by the FCC, though it
     is understood that FCC staff members are aware of our
     undertaking."
     The text of the Notice of Inquiry in FCC 80-702 General
Docket 80-756 followed as a message to MsgGroup. The issue
involved Digital Communications protocol conversions between
different networks.
Email comments to the U.S. Postal Service
     Another example of government officials seeking input from
MsgGroup participants involved United States Postal Service
interface specifications for Electronic Computer-Originated Mail
(ECOM). Richard Shuford posting from MIT-AI (27) in a message
dated July 8, 1981, noted that there had been an announcement in
the Federal Register on June 19, 1981 (page 32111) of a public
meeting for questions and comments on the proposed system. That
meeting was then held at the Postal Services headquarters in
Washington, D.C. However, as there seemed to be no press coverage
that the meeting would happen, only "professional Federal
Register readers" knew of the meeting to attend it. Shuford
described how the result of this situation was that "the meeting
was therefore attended only by representatives of large
corporations that have some economic interest in what the Postal
Service does with electronic mail." However, a few days before
this post on MsgGroup Shuford had received a call from a Postal
Service consultant who worked at SRI International. The
consultant said that he wasn't on the ARPANET but wanted Shuford
to send a message to those on the ARPANET for him. "He feels very
strongly," wrote Shuford, "that comments on the proposed system
should come from a wider variety of `stake-holders' (as he calls
them) in the future of electronic mail. In particular, he would
like to hear comments from personal computer users and others who
are not interested in electronic mail from a purely commercial
point of view." He related how the deadline was in 2 weeks on
July 23, 1981 and that comments could be sent by regular mail to
Charles Shaw, Director of Electronic-Mail Systems Development at
the Postal Service Research and Development Laboratory in Maryland.
     Shuford explained that the consultant was making his request
in an unofficial capacity and that therefore comments sent to
Harris should not mention his request.
     In response, Pickers at SRI-UNIX observed(28):
     "In a message which is sent to 100+ institutions, 200+
     individuals and spanning both North America and Europe (5
     million square miles), the suggestion to keep an individual's name in
     confidence seems a bit incongruous."
     Steve Kudlak, at MIT-MC disagreed. He wrote(29):
     "ACTUALLY THATS NOT TOO UNREASONABLE TO BELIEVE. We all know
     the Arpanet is another world and I assume a very high
     percentage of us are nice enuff to hold someone's name in
     confidence if they requested it."
     Several messages later, on July 18, Shuford explains that
Ron Newman at Parc-Maxc had located an email address for the
consultant and that it was possible to send him one's comments
directly by email.(30) "He will then have them printed and will
pass them along to the proper people at the Postal Services.
Please keep in mind," Shuford emphasized, "that any comments
passed along in such a manner are officially regarded as
`informal' comments. And that to register `official' opinion,
traditional procedures had to be followed." Thus a way to make
input directly into a government proceeding was available via
email.
     Many different issues were discussed on MsgGroup and when
some on the list suggested limiting what could be discussed,
others on the list would invariably complain and encourage a
broadness of subjects.
Debating the Focus of MsgGroup
     For example, Brian Reid at Carnegie Mellon University,
objected to efforts to limit the discussion on MsgGroup. He
wrote(31):
     MsgGroup is the closest that we have to a nationwide Computer
     science community forum.  MsgGroup is supposedly devoted to
     topics involving electronic mail.  One of the many virtues
     of computer-based mail systems is their astounding ability
     to support conferencing.  All of us are still learning a lot
     about the ways in which people communicate over these
     marvelous mail systems, and about the kinds of discussions
     that can and cannot be made to work over computer-based mail
     networks.
     Despite the large amount of supposed chitchat that passes
     over MsgGroup... I believe that such conferencing schemes
     are still very much at the research stage, and that
     ARPA and the public will ultimately benefit from our
     experiences using MsgGroup as a nationwide community forum,
     no matter what the topic at hand.
     Until such time as people start suggesting the overthrow of
     our government over MsgGroup, I don't think any sensible
     topic should be off limits unless you decide that said topic
     falls outside the scope of MsgGroup.  If you decide to
     restrict the topics that ought to be discussed in MsgGroup,
     then I submit that there ought to be a "Network-Forum"
     mailing list which could be a general-purpose forum.
     The crucial issue for the MsgGroup, however, was seen to be
the discussion of message systems and eventually of office
automation. In May of 1980, Stefferud announced that office
automation should be a significant focus of the MsgGroup mailing
list. He wrote(32):
     As the "Coodinator in Chief" of MsgGroup, I would like to
     take this opportunity to ask whether we should shift our
     focus to office automation in general, as a natural
     expansion from the message systems orientation that we have
     had for the last five years?  (Yes!  Count them, five whole
     years!)
     It is my opinion that the ARPANET provides the best
     available prototypical office automation environment, one
     that contains all the required facilities, elements,
     functions, and features somewhere or other around the net.
     I use a wide variety of systems on different hosts to get my
     work done.  I truly use the network as my electronic office,
     which is somewhat remarkable because I am working as a
     management consultant, rather than as a computer or network
     technician.
     Unless we hear some serious dissent, we should consider this
     change of focus to be a fait accompli.
     Cheers - Stef
     His proposal was greeted with support(33):
     I agree wholeheartedly with Stef that we should accept our
     destiny and let all office automation be within the Msggroup
     purview. I, too, conduct large amounts of my work via
     various network facilities, and often describe the "office
     of the future" to groups as already existing within the net
     framework. So by all means let's continue discussions such
     as the recent one on the Prime OA stuff.
     [Howard]
     But it was also greeted with an opposing view from Gaines at
Rand (34). He wrote:
     I think the term "office automation" is at once too broad
     and too narrow for the charter of MsgGroup.  The MsgGroup
     ought to broadly focus on issues relevant to computer
     generation, manipulation, and transmission of messages....
     But, there are nevertheless aspects of office automation
     that are pretty distant from issues related to messages.
     Taste and judgment rather than any sort of strict rules
     should be the determinant of whether something is
     appropriate for the MsgGroup, and we ought to take kindly to
     rather far removed discussions if somebody considers that
     they are worth presenting to the MsgGroup.  However, I think
     we ought to still say that our focus is on issues related to
     computers and messages. The field of office automation is
     too narrow. Messages are used in other context than what
     people normally associate with the office environment....
     Men communicate for a large variety of reasons in a wide
     variety of circumstances and we should not narrowly
     constrain ourselves to any one subset of that universe of
     communications.
     "So here's a vote against a change of focus and a vote for a
very wide latitude in interpreting what falls within the purview
of MsgGroup," concluded Gaines.
     Stefferud responded that his view of office automation was
not a narrow one, but a broad one encompassing the broad scope
that was being proposed by others. He wrote(35):
     Thanks...for your careful comments.  I concur with
     your assessment and suggestion.  I see the new focus as
     being wider as you propose it, but your clarification is
     very helpful.
     From my ARPANET experience, I find that office automation
     should mean the application of computer networking and
     computer mail facilities to all kinds of work in all
     possible locations.
     Office Automation does not belong exclusively to the Word
     Processing Industry any more than to the TWX Switching
     Industry or the ADP Systems Industry.  It belongs to the
     integration of all these, which to this date has only been
     demonstrated in these hallowed ARPANET halls.
     And, to me, COMPUTER NETWORK MAIL is THE KEY ADDED INGREDIENT.
     So to further set our new context - Onward!  Stef
     While new and exploratory uses of the Net were tried out on
MsgGroup, there was also discussion of the kinds of uses that had
to be prevented. In a post by Leonard Foner(36) explains that
as a "tourist" on the ARPANET he was able to get an account at
MIT but had to sign and return an application form which detailed
"good uses of MIT's computer resources, as well as caveats about
things that a tourist should not do. It is fairly simple at
least to warn them about abusing the network," he wrote,
especially against using it for commercial purposes, which were
forbidden. He recommended, "That all users of the net...should be
informed as to its intended uses, and what is strictly forbidden
(such as profit-making from the Net)....Discussion of funded
research on the net seems fine," he continued, noting that that
was what the ARPANET was created to support."
     In 1977, a message from IPTO's Steve Walker indicated that
he would no longer be following MsgGroup in his old status, but
that he had found the work done by those participating in
MsgGroup very valuable. He wrote(37):
     It has been a long time since I have sent a message to this
     group but I have certainly enjoyed the dialog which has
     taken place here for the past two and a half years.
     In remembering all the things that have happened during that
     time, it is with a good bit of reluctance that I announce my
     departure from ARPA in late January for a position with the
     Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.  In
     my new position I hope to be able to influence the
     acceptance by the Defense Dept of secure computer systems,
     interactive message systems and general networking
     capabilities.  I plan to remain active on the ARPAnet and to
     maintain close contact with groups such as yours.
     I am personally proud to have been associated with the
     collection of people on the ARPA network who got this whole
     message handling, electronic mail thing started.  Keep up
     your excellent work.
     "Have a good holiday season," his message ended.
The Need for Interneting
     By 1979, Crocker noted that he and others were working on
a project to create a new distributed mail program MMDF, Multi-
channel Memo Distribution Facility(38), "to allow mail
transmission between machines which have access to a variety of
communication lines." In particular, he wrote, "We want to allow
interneting and to eliminate the need for being attached to the
ArpaNet."
     A report by the DCA (Defence Communications Agency) in July
1980 documented how the ARPANET had grown to over 66 nodes and
included 4000-5000 users(39). The report explained how even though
the ARPANET was successful, there were problems. "The basic
hardware and software are becoming obsolete," it noted. It
described how the nodes used minicomputers developed in the 1960s
which no longer had sufficient memory and other capabilities to
support technical components to the network. The ultimate goal,
"of our planning," the report explained, "is to provide for an
ARPANET II which will be a virtual network and will make use of
several different networks."
     The report described how in the next 3 years the ARPANET
Host Protocols Network Control Program (NCP)would be replaced
with a new DOD Standard Protocol Set. The new protocols were DOD
Standard Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the Internet
Protocol (IP). Also, new computers would replace the IMPs and
TIPs that formed the IMP subnetwork administered by BBN. All
Honeywell equipment was to be replaced with the BBN C/30 costing
$20,000 - $35,000 (depending on the configuration) if funding
could be obtained, and the software would run in a virtual mode.
Unix and the Transition to TCP/IP
     Other messages noted that there were many sites that wanted
network connections, but that the ARPANET couldn't accommodate
them. It was during this 1979-80 period that Usenet was being
introduced at Duke and the University of North Carolina to
provide an online network for those in the Unix community.(40)
     In a post on July 4, 1981, Mike Muuss at the Ballistic Research
Laboratory noted that it was possible to run Unix on many of
the computers being used by those who wanted network
connectivity. He wrote(41):
     "Unix runs on everything these days"
     This would help facilitate the transition from the IMP with
NCP subnetwork to TCP/IP protocols that was being planned for
January. 1 1983. "There exists AT LEAST one choice of software for
UNIX systems," writes Muuss in a post on the fa.digest-p on
January 14, 1982,(42) "(all machines), T(w)enexes,
Multics, and IBMs, so the majority of the "ordinary" systems will
at least be able to talk, even if non conveniently." However, he
noted that there was not a TCP/IP implementation for the ITS
machines at MIT that archived and carried many of the ARPANET
Mailing lists.
     By May 3, 1982, a post by Steve Hartwell noted, "Let's not
forget, there are more unix sites than arpanet sites." And Usenet
was helping to meet the goal of providing "interoperabilty among
our differently hosted mesage systems." (43).
     Also, the problem of large mailing lists had become clear on
the ARPANET. Lists that had several hundred participants like
Msggroup and others were a heavy load on the host machines that
were used to send them out.
     Horton noted the superiority of Usenet to ARPANET for
mailing lists as it made it possible to send one copy to each
site, rather than having to send out a copy to each person
subscribing(44), "Note that one of the big points of USENET is that
only one copy of each digest or article is sent to each site...."
       Those sites using Unix as their operating system could
connect to Usenet and thus have access to some of the ARPANET
mailing lists. Mark Horton, posting on MsgGroup in 1983 wrote(45):
     I'll repeat my invitation to any sites, ARPANET or
     otherwise, who want to join Usenet - drop me a line and I'll
     point you at a nearby contact.  If you run UNIX, the code is
     all written; if you run something else, you'll have some
     work to do....
     Also, by this period several of those who had participated in
MsgGroup and the ARPANET were participants on the discussion on
Usenet. And the MsgGroup themes of supporting and exploring the
development of communication using an online network were
continued via Usenet and the ARPANET mailing lists which were
ported to Usenet by Horton at the University of California at
Berkeley.
                             Part IV
                       The Early Days of Usenet
     Usenet was created in 1979 by graduate students at the
Duke University and the University of North Carolina who were
trying to create a network to connect those who had access to the
Unix operating system.(46) By the summer of 1980, Mark Horton, at
the University of California at Berkeley had joined Usenet.
Berkeley was also a site on the ARPANET and Horton soon began to
port the discussion from several ARPANET mailing lists onto
Usenet. At first those on Usenet could only read the discussion
on the ARPANET mailing lists, but by Fall 1980, contributions
from Usenet participants began to be a part of the ARPANET lists
carried on Usenet.
     Among the earliest ARPANET mailing lists carried on Usenet were
Sf-lovers and Human Nets. By Spring of 1981, however, a new
mailing list was started to deal with office automation. That
mailing list was made available on Usenet as FA.apollo. It was
named after one of the workstations. In an early post to the mailing
list, Roger Duffy wrote(47):
     Hello,
          Welcome to the APOLLO mailing list.  APOLLO discusses
     personal work station computers, such as the APOLLO work
     station computer, the Three Rivers Corporation PERC, or the
     recently announced Xerox STAR.  APOLLO provides a way for
     interested members of the ARPAnet community to discuss what
     is wrong with these machines, compare notes on work in
     progress, and share useful insights about these kinds of
     systems.  The list is managed by Hank Dreifus <Dreifus at
     WHARTON>.
     He explained that "APOLLO is currently discussing initial
reactions to the Xerox Star Workstation." And he ended his
message, "Lastly, welcome to APOLLO.  I trust you will enjoy
being part of these discussions."
     A flurry of discussion followed, and it soon began to center
on the pros and cons of having a programming language available
with the Xerox Star Workstation.
     Summarizing responses from those on the mailing list and
participating on the Usenet newsgroup, Hank Dreifus at the Wharton
School in PA noted several generalizations he felt applied to the
subject area(48).
   o   Everyone's view of Personal Workstations is different.
   o   The machine(s) selected are wide ranged and apparently
       well suited for each application chosen.
   o   There is no wrong Personal Workstation machine.
   o   The technology of Personal Workstations is not well
       established as of yet.
   o   There is a demonstrated need for this technology,
       it appears to be one year away from general use.
     The summary listed the common characteristics of
workstations and described the parts not yet available. "The
intention is to educate ourselves about personal workstations,"
explained the post, "They sound neat, but what they are under the
surface is still a hot topic."
     Particular discussion in the list focused on the Xerox
machines -- the Xerox Star, their high end machine and the 820, a
less expensive product.
     Questions were raised as to whether the 820 could be
networked to the Star. Others asked what software would be
available with the Star (49) and particularly if there would be a
programming system available. One response noted that the Star
would come with a low power programming language, but that a more
powerful programming environment called the Mesa development
system had been developed at Xerox would not be made
available(50).
     Apparently, the poster noted, "the reasoning behind this
involves consistency in system software." The post explained that
Xerox felt it would keep users from doing harm to the system by
restricting access to the Mesa programming environment. Those who
wanted new applications would have to ask Xerox to create them.
      Another post explained that if Xerox wanted to succeed in
selling the Star (51) "it is essential that they provide a decent
programming language with it. Otherwise," the post continued, "it
will be just a word processor or maybe a little more." He went on
to explain that those using the Star would need specific
specialized applications and only if there was a programming
language would it be possible to have those written.
     A subsequent post noted that though the initial purchase of
the Star was expensive, that would end up being a minimal cost
compared to the cost of renting software. He wrote (52):
     You people seem to be concentrating on the hardware costs of
     STAR, which, from my reading of the information available is
     just the start-up. I think this is like worrying about
     Gillette's pricing of the razor-blade holder. Most people
     will be renting software (...blades) forever. This could get
     very expensive.
     Soon the moderator of the Apollo mailing list announced that
the name of this office automation system mailing list would
changed and on Usenet would become FA.works for personal
workstations, as it wasn't appropriate to name the list
after one particular product(53).
     The economics of buying a workstation was the subject of
discussion. One post noted (54) that because workstations like
the Star appeared expensive ($10,000 per person) they would
probably be attractive to managers rather than office peons.
Another poster (55) responded pointing out that for an engineer
earning $30,000 a year, his or her time might cost the company
$60,000, when the cost of the technology being used was added
to the salary paid. If having such a personal workstation like the
Star made work more productive, it would save the company money and
thus be worth the investment. He wrote (56) "so if I do my work 10%
faster, the company in some way, "saves" 6,000 (the savings could
be in hiring less engineers or by getting more work done per unit
time or by getting the job done more effectively."
     Another post cautioned that there was an interest cost to
borrowing for capital investment (57). "At today's rates, $10K
capital investment costs the economy 20% interest, either directly
because they had to borrow it, or indirectly because they don't
have it to invest elsewhere. So your increase in productivity,"
he noted, "would have to be at least 20% to break even. He went
on to discuss the difficulty of proving such "increases in
productivity."
     One of the participants on the FA.apollo newsgroup, and
on the successor newsgroup that followed it, FA.works, was Randy
Ivanciw. He had also posted on the MsgGroup list. He became a
regular contributor to the FA.Apollo and FA.works.(58)
     In his introduction, he wrote:
     I am Randy Ivanciw, a computer specialist with the US Army
     Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM).  My major duties
     include long range and short range planning for office
     automation. I work at DARCOM headquarters (I am a civilian)
     as a member of a 7 person staff dealing with the use,
     planning, implementation and other nasties of office
     automation.
     He explains how the installation at DARCOM benefitted from
the discussion on the list, which helped to make possible a broad
view of what they were trying to do. He wrote:
     In reading the debates pro and con on big systems and little
     systems, where big systems are large mainframes and little
     systems are personal workstations....Let me illustrate how
     we have attempted to incorporate both worlds in our OA
     plans.
     Describing the system he helped create, he writes:
     DARCOM has a DEC 10 (DARCOM-KA) on the ARPANET which it uses
     to provide electronic mail and other OA services to a broad
     community of users throughout the command (the command is
     all over this country).  Access is via ARPANET.  Advantages here
     are that for a relatively inexpensive yearly charge a
     remotely located single user can obtain OA service with a
     communications capability as powerful as the ARPANET.  This
     service is in such demand that we cannot supply services in
     large enough quantities (thus the DEC 10 will soon be
     replaced with a couple of 11/780s to provide more services).
     Outlining a 3 level office automation system, he explains
how it is used to encourage participation.
     For example, let me paint a typical scenario of one of
     DARCOM's subordinate commands or activities just entering
     into the world of office automation:
     The Commander or somebody at the command wants to try office
     automation.  Now they are unsure of its benefits so they
     don't want to spend mucho money.  The buy a mailbox on our
     DARCOM-KA (LARGE MAINFRAME).  With this mailbox they can
     experiment with all the OA tools.
     After a short while they want 5 or 10 other people at their
     command or activity to get mailboxes so that they can
     communicate via electronic mail.  They buy more mailboxes on
     the large mainframe.
     Then it is determined that office automation is good for the
     command.  They make large scale plans to provide OA services
     to 100, or 200, or 300, or how-ever-many prople.  At this
     point the economies of scale move towards the LARGE CLUSTER
     machine.  With a large cluster installed locally, the
     command is essentially running their own OA.
     But soon they find that more and more users are demanding
     service. Enter the small cluster.  As one division goes from
     one or two users (who were getting OA services on the large
     cluster) to a demand to provide services to 8 or 10 people
     in that particular division, a micro computer is installed
     in the division to provide those services (and offset the
     demand on the large cluster).(59)
     His post indicates a process within ARPA encouraging office
automation. The discussion on FA.apollo and then FA.works mailing
proved helpful to those like Ivanciw who were charged with such a
task, but who didn't find their questions were answered by the
vendors. For example, Ivanciw, describes the difficulty he
encountered during a sales event trying to get information about
how successfully the Xerox 820 and Star Workstations could be
connected to the Ethernet. He writes (60), "So what it breaks down
to is this: there are not too many folks at Xerox that know how
these things connect to the ethernet.  The literature is written
so that one can assume a lot."
     A response to his post described how the two different Xerox
workstations had been developed and how there was ethernet
capabilility really functioning on only one of them. Paul Karger,
who had worked at Xerox, wrote (61):
     The key to getting through the Xerox propaganda is to
     realize that there is NOT one, but TWO office automation
     product lines which have been forcefully "merged."  These
     lines were developed by two competing groups and don't
     really have much in common....
     The two product lines evolved and were designed separately....
     I hear that the Xerox sales force is claiming that they have
     an integrated product line for office automation.  Low cost
     820's up to the Star.  Ah . . .  I don't think I can agree
     with that.  I believe they are undermining their credibility
     when they try to convince people of this.
     Karger's post included a diagram with two columns describing
the origins of the two sets of products designs(62). In a postscript
to his message, he wrote:
     P.S.  Randy -- to answer your specific message, the products
     in column one all have the Ethernet designed and built in
     from the start.  The products in column two have had the
     Ethernet added with chewing gum and bailing wire (if at all).
                         Part V
              Questioning What Should Be Discussed
     Not surprisingly there were managers at Xerox who were not
happy about the kind of frank discussion ongoing on the ARPANET
mailing lists. A post by David Liddle, Vice President of the
Office Products Division at Xerox explained his reluctance to
have Xerox products discussed by Xerox employees on the ARPANET
(63):
     Many of you in Xerox are aware of a newly created Arpanet
     distribution list named Apollo. It was established to
     promote discussion of personal workstation computers. As you
     might expect, much of the recent discussion has involved the
     Xerox 8010 Star information system. Because many of the
     messages ask for information about this product and its
     associated development software, you may feel tempted to
     reply to some of them.
     It is ARPA policy that the Arpanet be used only for
     government supported research and development. It is against
     Xerox policy to use the Arpanet to discuss products....
     Xerox employees use the Arpanet for ARPA related research
     purposes only, not for answering questions or distributing
     information about our products.
     Questions from potential customers about the Xerox 8010 and
     other OPD products should be referred to Arnold Palmer,
     Field Sales Manager, Xerox Corporation, 1341 West
     Mockingbird Lane, Dallas, Texas 75247, phone (214) 689-6689.
     David E. Liddle
     Vice President
     Office Products Division
     A response to Liddle's post challenged the reasons he had given
for limiting discussion. Lars Ericson at CMU wrote(64):
     The use of the ARPANET for informal discussion of computer
     science -- related issues is a primary win. It is clear that
     such discussion is beneficial to ongoing government research
     projects -- DARCOM and Office Automation for example, are
     well represented on the Work Station.
     Ericson continued:
     Mr Liddle also seems to forget that the reason PARC efforts
     are so immensely saleable these days is precisely BECAUSE of
     their participation and open-ness (as opposed to IBM, say)
     in the ARPA/university research community, and not in spite
     of it.
     "Mr. Liddle's Xerox policy announcement," Ericson wrote,
"represents the sort of irrelevant (to ARPANET interests)
administrative miserlyness that we may come to expect from Xerox
now that the 13-piece suits have brought PARC to market."
     Also responding Little's post, Joe Newcomer emphasized ARPA's
policy forbidding commercial use of the ARPANET(65).
     Joining the controversy, Crocker explained (66):
     It is my understanding that the purpose of this discussion is
     to consider the technical aspects of personal work-stations.
     Arpa and the rest of the military are investing quite a bit
     of money in this area, so that this discussion would seem to
     be extremely appropriate to the Arpanet mission.
     He added:
     I do not believe that conformance with the Arpanet
     proscriptions necessarily requires commercial participants
     to be prohibited from voicing opinions about the technology
     in general or from answering specific questions about their
     product. Touting their product is another matter.
     Crocker's proposal was that, "I suggest that each company
assign one technical (not marketing) person to respond to
queries.  This will permit direct information, while making
"tone-control" easier."
                             Part VI
                      Limited Distribution?
     Not only was there reluctance on the part of representatives
of some commercial entities to have open conversation of all
issues on ARPANET mailing lists ported to Usenet, but also there
was a sense among ARPANET participants that their contributions
should be considered privileged private publications and their
distribution strictly limited. A conversation describing this
issue developed on FA.digest-p carried on the ARPANET and on
Usenet. In January 1982 a post noted that Computer World magazine
had gotten copies of the TCP digest from someone and published
verbatim quotes from the digest(67). Though the source of the
leak acknowledged what had been done and agreed to stop, "it gave
everybody a real scare," the post noted. "My temporary solution
to this issue," the poster proposed, "is to add the following
notice to the Masthead:
"TCP/IP Digest            Thursday, 8 Oct 1981      Volume 1 : Issue 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                         LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
          For Research Use Only --- Not for Public Distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------------
At least this ensures that anybody who gets fed a copy knows that
it is not supposed to be shouted to the treetops.  Comments?"
     Christopher C Stacy at MIT disagreed with such a publication
identifier. He wrote (68):
     I think that the explicit banner on the masthead of the
     Digest is a bad idea, because this will cause many people to
     think that if such a banner is NOT present (ie., on any
     other Digests or on future TCP Digests) that it is alright
     to redistribute the material.
     In another post, Stacy described his understanding of why
ARPANET mailing lists had to have limited distribution. (69) He
pointed to an incident that had occurred when MIT had to fight
for its continued existence on the ARPANET after an article in
the journal Datamation about the WINE-TASTERS mailing list
appeared. He also cautioned of the possible liability problems
when evaluating and discussing various commercial products, as
with the INFO-TERMS mailing list which evaluated terminals.
     "But laying down the law," he wrote, "is a fairly useless
way of solving this sort of problem. The problem is one of
awareness, cooperation and trust. Only if people understand and
care, will they take steps to protect a fragile institution like
the ARPANET," he wrote.
     Another post noted that the mailing list digests "do not
exist as authorized publications." (70) He felt that they should
be considered "internal communications between research project
members authorized to use the net."
     A post asking about the implications of the Daniel Ellsberg
case to this issue by Mike Muuss was answered by Paul Karger.
Karger wrote (71):
          While putting a restricted distribution statement on a
     digest may be a psychological limitation on distribution,
     there are a couple of problems. First, since ARPA and DCA
     are part of the DoD, there are specific regulations on what
     may or may not be marked as FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.
     The regulations are in part designed to not let people
     invent other kinds of markings. This dates back to the
     Ellsberg case and the desire to limit the ability of
     government people to conceal information from the "public"
     (whoever that is).
     Though Karger said his familiarity with the regulations was
a little stale, "I would be very careful about developing new
ways to restrict distribution of government information," he
cautioned.
     Through this discussion, concerns for limiting the ARPANET
discussions were raised, and answered with the limitations that
the current state of relevant law allowed US government officials
to impose on the ARPANET mailing list discussions.
     Thus the way was cleared for broader distribution of the
posts on ARPANET mailing lists, making the transition from the
limited circulation available on the ARPANET to the broader
participation Usenet made possible.
                            Part VII
                       Usenet Welcomes All
     While access to the ARPANET was limited, Usenet welcomed all
who were willing to connect in a public way (72). "Usenet is a
public network," wrote Mark Horton, "and those on it should
announce themselves."
     "It seems to be a common thing," he wrote, "for a new site
to come upon USENET without telling anyone they exist." What
happens," he explained, "is that someone hears about USENET from
someone already on the net, who sends them their copy of whatever
code they are running." He asked, "When you start getting network
news, you should announce your existence to the net by filling
out the enclosed form and posting it to the newsgroup net.general....
This form will be used as your entry in the USENET directory.
Note," he continued, that is the policy of USENET that all sites
receiving public newsgroups (such as net.all and fa.all) are
public in the sense that the fact they are on USENET is public.
The name and phone number of a contact person, as well as the
name and location of the site, is important. If you are doing
some kind of secret work there is certainly no need to divulge
the nature of your work. If you feel that you must keep your
existence a secret, you should not be joining USENET," Horton
clarified.
     A form was provided for a new site to fill in. Horton asked
that those joining Usenet post their announcement and basic
configuration information in NET.general. NET.general was the one
newsgroup that all were on Usenet during this period were
encouraged to read (73). "net general," wrote Horton, "is for
stuff that everybody is supposed to at least consider reading.
"It's useful for INITIAL QUERIES and ANNOUNCEMENTS." However, he
noted that "It is NOT there for discussions." He explained, "If
you see something in net.general you want to comment on, you
should almost always just REPLY to the author, not follow up to
the world. If a continuing discussion is needed, start a new
newsgroup." He also suggested replying to initial queries from
NET.general in NET.misc. "NET.misc," he wrote, "is a good way to
keep net.general free of trivia without starting new newsgroups
for short lived topics." He urged those on Usenet to realize that
not all might be interested in a particular topic but "feel
obligated to read things in net.general because of their possible
importance."
     Matt Glickman, who with Mark Horton wrote the code for B
News, supported Horton's request for maintaining NET.general as a
newsgroup that would concern all. He wrote (74):
     Just reminding everybody (It feel it is my duty...) that
     net.general is no run-of-the-mill newsgorup. No sir. It's
     not net.misc and it's not net.news. net.general should only
     contain GENERAL interest information of interest to the
     ENTIRE network. Especially, no dreaded newsgroup discussions
     whatsoever! Please behave yourselves.
     Therefore, while the posts on NET.general don't document the
interesting discussion carried on on early Usenet, they do convey
some of the general concerns and views of the pioneering Usenet
participants.
     Many of those on early Usenet were programmers or system
administrators. As such, they are particularly sensitive to
misspellings and other textual and writing errors. In a post on
NET.general, one user gathered comments from all interested about
concerns about what they considered poor writing that appeared on
Usenet. In response, Rob Glaser from Yale wrote (75):
     It is true that many technical people use the English
     language sloppily. In an informal setting such as USENET,
     however, content ought to be valued over form, timelines
     over lengthy deliberation. I'd rather see a timely article
     with a few grammatical mistakes (as long as it is basically
     coherent) than the same piece, impeccably written but
     appearing days later."
     He also observed that the software (inews) for posting
sometimes was problemmatic and helped create the grammatical or
other errors one saw online. He wrote:
     Another factor to keep in mind is that, judging from some of
     the submissions we receive over the net, the inews
     submission interface is not always conducive to perfection
     (not a slap at the news designers, just the imcompetents,
     myself included, who make dumb mistakes.)
     He then went on to describe how he had had to redo even this
post twice before getting it right. "For instance," he wrote, "I
messed up two earlier versions of this flame (one of which may
have been sent, my apologies if it was) before (*pray*) finally
getting things right."
     Other posts on NET.general included requests for
recommendations for buying something worthwhile or complaints
about problems users were having with commercial entities to see
if others had similar problems or could help.
     For example, a post by Larry Piovano (76) described how he
was planning to buy a color tv with a 13" screen. He asked for
recommendations and experiences of others to help him decide
which brand to get. "I wish to buy one," he wrote, "that will not
die in short order." Bill Shannon from Digitial Equipment
answered (77), "My 12 inch Sony has been going strong for 10
years with no repairs, no adjustments, no problems! And I'm sure
they've gotten better (and more expensive)." A response on Usenet
responded (78):
     Suggest SONY. I have two trinitrons and they work
     wonderfully...."
     The post continued:
     I have had my SONY for a couple of years now and have had no
     problem. I suggest you get one with an electronic tuner (no
     moving parts to wear out). Try the wireless remote control.
     Its a great toy if your lazy."
     A similar question about recommendations regarding the Hayes
Smart modem was posed by John L. McAlpine in Canada at the
Saskatchewan Linear Accelerator. He wrote (79):
     Use of HAYES Smart Modem
     1) I would appreciate receiving comments on the reliability
     of above modem.
     2) If anyone has available the appropriate patches to use
     this modem with uucp for auto-dialling I would appreciate
     receiving same.
     A post by Ron Gordon at Bell Labs (Murray Hill) warned other
Volkswagon Rabbit owners of a potential radiator tank leak. He
wrote (80):
          Attention VW Rabbit owners, you may have a problem! The
     radiator overlow tank on my vehicle developed several cracks
     which permitted coolant to escape. Because the overflow tank
     is directly connected to the radiator system without a
     valve, a leak in the overflow tank is just as bad as a leak
     in the radiator!
     He went on to ask if other VW Rabbit owners were having a
similar problem. "My tank failed after 16 months at 15,000
miles," he wrote, "Should enough evidence become available, a
formal complaint may be filed with VW and the Consumer Protection
Agency."
     Another Usenet poster asked if there could be a consumer
forum newsgroup to monitor companies that ripoff consumers. In
his post, Randy King wrote (81):
     What provisions, if any, have been made to provide a sharing
     of gripes about national "ripoff" companies and the like? I
     would like to hear some comment on this, as well as see the
     establishment of a newsgroup (as if any more were needed).
     It might be very interesting to see what goes [on-ed] out
     there and to provide readers with some insight to companies
     so that they may not be smitten by these "invisible
     stalkers!
"What's the feeling out there," his post asked.
     Responding to an answer by Andy Tanenbaum from Bell Labs
about the intent of his post, King wrote that he had had in mind
an insurance company, but that the forum could discuss both
problemmatic and beneficial companies. (82)
     Several of the posts on NET.general suggested creating new
     newsgroups, such as a post by Linda Seltzer at Bell Labs (83):
     I would like to start a newsgroup called net.music
    `for communication among composers, news of concerts
     and conferences, news about computer music, news of
     good new records, etc.  Anyone interested in
     subscribing to this group please send mail to
     research.lin or alice.seltzer
     - Linda Seltzer
     Another post noted that her email was inaccurate in her
post, and that it should be alice!seltzer (84).
     Other posts concerned general questions or problems. For
example, Andy Tanenbaum posted about a piece of junk mail he had
received from a head hunter who seemed to have gotten his name
from the list of conference attendees who attended the previous
USENIX winter conference (85). "I DON'T want junk mail from
employment agencies," he wrote. "If you want to put up a
recruiting note at a USENIX, fine. But as long as I have a means
here to express my dissatisfaction, I want it to be known that I
look with bad feelings toward companies that badger me by abusing
a valuable resource." His post ended, "I wouldn't want a future
list of conferees to not have addresses just because some losers
bother some of the good folks on the list with junk mail. Don't
call us, we'll call you."
     A post by Jay Lepreau asked if there were any archive of
bugs for software that had been posted on Usenet so he wouldn't
have to do work others had already done. He wrote (86):
     Has anyone out there been archiving any of the "net.*bugs"
     newsgroups or just have old stuff still kicking around? We
     just joined Usenet around the beginning of November; if
     anyone has stuff from before that I'd appreciate hearing
     from you. I'm TIRED of fixing bugs i know have been found &
     fixed before. I can send you a shell script to pull stuff
     out of your .nindex if you've got A news; I don't know how B
     news works.
     A post from Scott Baden announced (87) that he was in the
process of creating an annotated bibliography on two topics:
"Functional Programming languages" and about "Applicative
architectures." He asked those with any references or comments to
email them to him, promising, "I'll make a copy of the
bibliography available to all interested parties. If you have
already started a bibliography I'd be interested in collaborating
with you."
     News items were posted as was one on the AT&T settlement
with the U.S. government posted on January 8, 1982 by Steve
Bellovin. The post explained (88):
     AT&T and the U.S. government have settled their seven-year-
     old anti-trust suit out of court. Under the terms of the
     settlement, AT&T will divest itself of the local operating
     companies; it will retain AT&T Long Lines (the long distance
     service), Western Electric, and Bell Labs. The
     reorganization will be completed within 18 months.
     Questions about Usenet were posted, as in a post by Randy
King asking how long it took a post to get to the majority on
Usenet. He wrote (89):
     This may have been answered long before my emergence onto
     NETNEWS, but I will ask it anyway! Does anybody have a feel
     for how long it takes a posted article to reach the majority
     of the NETNEWS community? I realize that there are N!
     variables here, but a general ordinary run-of-the mill
     answer would suffice. Two Days? Three Days? A month? Fifteen
     minutes? (HA). How 'bout it.
     A response from Horton described the process of distribution
of Netnews during this period. He wrote (90):
     It depends on the newsgroup and where you are. If you are
     somewhere inside Bell Labs or on a key machine with a dialer
     (decvax, duke) it will probably get out to 70 - 80% of the
     net within a few hours. If not, you probably have to wait
     for an overnight poll, but it will get most places ( >90% )
     overnight. There are some far reaches that won't get it for
     2-3 days (more if something is down) and it may take another
     2-3 days for a reply or followup to get back to you.
     Horton went on to describe how distribution of the Mailing
Lists carried on Usenet occurred. He wrote:
     The fa newsgroups are different. They are fed in at Berkeley
     which then waits for ihnss [at Bell Labs-ed] and decvax [at
     Digital Equipment Corp-ed] to poll. ihnss only polls once a
     day (in the early morning). decvax calls often. So Bell Labs
     (which gets most stuff from ihnss) tends to have fa stuff
     each morning from the previous day. Those getting news from
     duke or decvax get it randomly, faster depending on when
     decvax happens to call ucbvax (at Berkeley-ed) usually
     several time a day.
     Horton also described other delays affecting how users got
news from Usenet. He wrote:
     And of course there are the delays from the time the news
     shows up on a system to when any given person actually reads
     it - often once a day, but some people log in on neighboring
     machines to get news and don't get it that often. I have
     gotten replies to queries as much as 3 weeks later, not
     counting the famous unix-wizards drought where it took 2
     months to reach the masses before it even got into USENET!
     In summary, he wrote, "But a rough rule of thumb is that by
overnight, most of the net will have at least had the chance to
read your article."
      Along with the advantages of being on Netnews were the
problems that users were confronted with. One such problem
concerned discussion over what was appropriate discussion or in
bad taste. Others claimed it was censorship to bar certain
discussions. Describing this problem, Horton wrote:
     Also, PLEASE restrict your "questionable taste" stuff to
     net.jokes.q for the time being until this whole thing is
     settled. I am seeing stuff in net.general about dead babies
     that certainly offends me (and no, I'm neither dead nor a
     baby) and probably half the rest of the net. I'm still
     seeing poor taste jokes in net.jokes. There are people out
     there that are trying not to get this stuff, and they are
     being barraged with it anyway! This includes limericks -
     most of them belong in net.jokes.q. If you would be
     unwilling to get on your local TV station and recite what
     you're posting (with your mother and your boss in the
     audience) you shouldn't be broadcasting it to an equally
     wide audience of random people. Remember, also, that a
     record is kept on every machine of everything you say.
     He also asked for input from those who found such posts
offensive toward trying to determine an appropriate policy with
regard to such posts. He wrote (91):
     I haven't been hearing from many people who actually ARE
     OFFENDED by the net.jokes.q stuff. I'd like to get input
     from them (either privately by electronic mail or publicly
     in net.news) in regards to the policy that needs to be
     formed. How you feel about various proposed solutions is
     important. Anyone who further understands the Affirmative
     Action issues should speak up -- I don't claim to understand
     them very well.
     Another concern involved what were appropriate posts on
Usenet. J.C. Winterton asked that users not post articles from
the wire services but instead that people subscribe to newspapers
for such information rather than trying to send it around on
Usenet. He wrote (92):
     Notwithstanding the fact that some persons do work for Bell,
     it STILL costs a bundle to send this stuff around the
     continent on this network when it is being shipped by the
     wire services anyway. Why not just subscribe to a large
     daily newspaper or two. If you really are interested in the
     entertainment world you can subscribe to Variety. The New
     York Times and the Times of London probably carry everything
     else. And where these are unavailable, there are other major
     papers. I don't believe that usenet should become an arm of
     AP, Reuters, etc. I am reasonably sure that they would be
     somewhat upset with the infringing of their copyright as
     well. That a thing can be done is not a reason to do it!
     Besides, by distributing wire service stuff this way (with
     or without authorization) is probably helping to unemploy
     some poor newspaper carrier, etc. etc."
     Commenting on the proliferation of new newsgroups and
newsgroup names, Horton promised to issue a list of the
newsgroups "officially blessed" to help resolve the problems of
multiple names for similar groups. But he also encouraged those
with various views on the issue to speak up. He wrote (93):
     I am coming to realized that people are waiting for me to
     say something. We are discussing what to do about the
     proliferation of newsgroups - if you want to be involved in
     this discussion please send me mail.  (We might even, ahem,
     start a newsgroup.)  I hope to have a list of active
     newsgroups, "officially blessed" (whatever that means), in a
     few days.
     Chain letters also posed a problem on early Usenet. Henry
Spencer from the University of Toronto posted asking users to
recognize the problem and keep it from harming the Net. He wrote
(94):
     Some turkeys evidently have decided it's funny, funny, funny
     to start sending chain letters around Usenet.  With all the
     mail headers on them, these messages are many Kbytes.  For
     some strange reason, when we're paying phone bills for 300-
     baud long distance calls, this does not seem amusing.  This
     is EXACTLY the sort of thing that could lead to humorless
     administrators closing down people's network connections on
     the grounds that the money is being wasted.  For heaven's
     sake people, STOP IT!!! Your thoughtless empty-headed
     practical joke is endangering the network that many people
     worked long and hard to set up!
     Noting the kinds of problems those on Usenet had to deal
with, Horton observed the obligation to those on Usenet to
consider its best interest. He urged that those with different
views of the issues involved be active and participate in the
discussions over what to do (95). "I propose that anyone with
opinions on this issue discuss it on net.news. I want to hear
from both sides. This is YOUR NETWORK, remember!
     Others on Usenet had hoped that it would make it possible to
form a new form of media or to influence the political process in
a way not formerly available. "Not to belittle any new
newsgroup," George Otto wrote (96), "but it strikes me that we
are developing a real electronic newspaper here."
     In a similar way, rdg at allegra wrote (97), "Wouldn't it be
great to use this electronic medium to send notes to our
government officials. i never seem to write postal letters or
telegrams, but we all seem to find these electric notes enough to
use often. Can you image net.reagan with a few authentic
replies."
     Scott Baden added (98), "Or what if we could lobby our
favorite senator? (net.lobby, net.senator?)"
     The dilemma of funding Usenet posed a problem to some sites
as described in the post by Chris Kent at the University of
Cincinnati. He wrote (99):
     We at the University of Cincinnati are on a budget crunch.
     Therefore, I have been told to cut down on outgoing calls or
     lose the ability to place them. I ask you all to cooperate,
     please; try to avoid routing program sources through us
     whenever possible. We will continue to transship news, so
     that won't be a problem, but will probably poll only every
     other day....I am sorry it has to come to this -- but some
     people higher up seem to see this as just wasted money.  I
     will keep you all posted as to our situation.
     Chris Kent (cincy!chris)
     Others like Mel Haas at Bell Labs (houxm) reported that the
funding of various sites could be jeopardized by an irresponsible
activity on the net and that all users should be aware of the
problems that might be caused. He wrote (100):
     This is a plea to clean up the net.  Please !  There are
     whole sections of the net that are being watched by the
     payers of the bills, and what shows now is not good.  The
     flame and flash content of the past few weeks has far
     outweighed the useful.  Don't revive the "db" stuff in
     net.cooks!  Don't send everything to net.general! and,
     certainly, don't send anything to both net.general and
     another! Put net.news stuff in net.news, net.records stuff
     in net.records, etc. Show some consideration for others in
     the wording and content of your submittals.
     He pointed out that responsible use would help establish how
the Net was a money saver for the sites paticipating and thus
support continued use. He wrote:
     Try to make the net a useful exchange of useful nformation
     and ideas, that will pay for the service and help people. In
     other words, make the net a useful tool, not a place to
     expose yourself, our ego and your bad manners.  Thank you.
     Mel Haas,  houxm!mel
     Explaining his need for access to Usenet even though he was
would no longer have Net access through the University of
California Berkeley, Michael Shilol wrote (101):
     I recently graduated from Berkeley where I enjoyed this
     network very much, both for entertainment and for receiving
     the latest news on many subjects.
     I am now starting a job and will soon be loosing my account
     on the Berkeley Vax. My question is:
     Is it possible for me to get access to this network in any
     way?
     Can my company get access to it?
     Is there a way to pay for this privilege?
     He noted that the useful technical information available on
Usenet was so valuable that a company could benefit financially
from being connected, "This network has been so useful to me for
finding information that I think it is worth money and/or
equipment to get it."
     And he concluded his post:
     "Any answers, comments, suggestions appreciated."
     He then had a form of signature giving both UUCP and ARPANET
address forms.
     Michael Shiloh
     CSVAX.shiloh@berkekey
     UCBVAX!shiloh
     In another post, George Otto at Indian Hill Bell Labs noted
the technical superiority of Usenet newsgroups to mailing lists.
He described the problem of keeping mailing lists on different
computers in sync. He wrote (102):
     Is anyone working on making mailing lists just as efficient
     as newsgroups? One problem with using mailing lists for
     maintaining communications among those in a small group of
     people is the difficulty of keeping the lists on many
     machines in sync.  I tried looking into setting up a
     program under my ID that would allow others to mail to me
     for automatic redistribution to a list I maintained, but
     never found a good way to do it.
     He noted that Usenet solved the problem in a superior way by
making it possible for people connected to different computers to
participate in a common newsgroup. He wrote:
     The beauty of using USENET it that members of affected
     groups can be on different machines and need do one or two
     simple things to be attached to the common group.
                           Conclusion
     These posts on NET.general show how those using different
computers at a wide variety of different academic and research
sites, many of which were not officially sponsored by any funding
agency, were able to participate in the kind of collaborative
communication and some of the mailing lists formerly only
available to those with access to the ARPANET. More importantly,
Usenet made the process of posing a problem and collaborating
with others to try to determine how to solve it more widely
available. Such a process is needed to solve the difficult
technical and social problems which computers and networking
technology present for our times. Habermas writes that there is a
need to understand such a scientific approach to technical issues
and challenges. What he doesn't recognize is that the technology
itself is needed to help in the process. The early ARPANET as
demonstrated through posts on the MsgGroup mailing list and early
Usenet provide beginning insight into how people using and
directing technology can be part of the important scientific and
regenerative process that contributing to the online community
makes possible.
                            Footnotes
(1)Floridi, Luciano, "Internet: Which Future for Organized
Knowledge, Frankenstein or Pygmalion?" The Information Society,
Vol. 12, No. 1, p 6.
(2)   Writing in 1968, the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas
noted the scientific methodology employed by the U.S. airforce
to solve difficult technological problems. He writes:
     The headquarters of the U.S. Air Force using experienced
     contact men presents a roughly outlined problem of military
     technology or organization to the program department of a
     research and consulting organization. The starting point is
     a vaguely formulated need. A more rigorous version of the
     problem first arises during the course of protracted
     communication between officers, themselves scientifically
     trained, and the project director. But contact is not broken
     off once the real problem is identified and successfully
     defined, for this suffices only to conclude a detailed
     contract. During the research itself, information is
     exchanged at all levels, from the president of the research
     organization down to the technician, with the
     corresponding personnel at the contracting institution.
     Communication may not end until the solution can be foreseen
     in principle is the goal of the project. The
     preunderstanding of the problem -- the practical need for the
     contracting agency -- is articulated in the measure that
     theoretical solutions, and consequently techniques of
     execution, crystallize in rigorously constructed model. The
     communication between the two partners is like a net of
     rational discussion stretching between practice and science.
     It must not break if during the development of
     specific technologies or strategies the originally vague,
     preunderstood interest in the elimination of a problematic
     situation is not to be frustrated -- if instead its intention
     is to be preserved in formalized scientific models.
                Toward A Rational Society, Jurgen Habermas, p.71
(3) James R. Killian, Jr., Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisenhower,
The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1977, xv, 129.
(4) Michael Hauben, "The Untold Story of the ARPANET", in Netizens:
On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, by Hauben,
Michael and Ronda Hauben, in press, 1997, URL
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
(5) The post also has the date of 1978, and so it seems it was
retransmitted in 1978
10-MAY-78 22:09:57-PDT,2463;000000000001
Mail-from: USC-ISI rcvd at 7-JUN-75 2024-PDT
Date:  7 JUN 1975 2024-PDT
From: WALKER at USC-ISI
Subject: MSGGROUP# 002 Message Group Status
To:   MessageGroup:
(6) Msg. #456
-------
10-MAY-78 22:13:37-PDT,13009;000000000001
Mail from OFFICE-1 rcvd at 16-FEB-77 1617-PST
Date: 16 FEB 1977 1609-PST
From: PANKO at OFFICE-1
Subject: MSGGROUP# 456 CB Computer Mail Draft
To:   msggroup at USC-ISI, farber at RAND-UNIX,
To:   schlesinger at PARC-MAXC
(7) Msg.#004
10-MAY-78 22:09:57-PDT,1645;000000000001
Mail-from: USC-ISI rcvd at 8-JUN-75 1636-PDT
Date:  8 JUN 1975 1629-PDT
From: DCROCKER at USC-ISI
Subject: MSGGROUP# 004 Use of a Teleconferencing system, in place of Net Mail
To:   MessageGroup:
(8) Ibid.
(9) Ibid.
(10) Msg #013
-------
10-MAY-78 22:09:58-PDT,594;000000000001
Date: 12 JUN 1975 1043-PDT
Sender: FARBER at USC-ISI
Subject: MSGGROUP# 013 Current Message Group Mailing List
From: FARBER at USC-ISI
To: MessageGroup:
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]12-JUN-75 10:43:25-PDT.FARBER>
(11) Msg #049
-------
10-MAY-78 22:10:04-PDT,2283;000000000001
Mail-from: USC-ISI rcvd at 23-JUN-75 1433-PDT
Date: 23 JUN 1975 1420-PDT
From: TASKER at USC-ISI
Subject: MSGGROUP# 049 MAILSYS; creation prompting
To:   [ISI]<Farber>MessageGroup.List:
(12) Msg. #053
(10-MAY-78 22:10:05-PDT,4443;000000000001
Date: 24 JUN 1975 1110-PDT
Sender: AMC at USC-ISI
Subject: MSGGROUP# 053 Army Materiel Command Interests in Message Systems
From: AMC at USC-ISI
To: [ISI]<Farber>MessageGroup.List:
Cc: Gilbert at OFFICE-1, Arntson at OFFICE-1, Cianflone at OFFICE-1, Mitchell a
t OFFICE-1, Dsmith at OFFICE-1, Gunn at OFFICE-1, Uhlig at OFFICE-1
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]24-JUN-75 11:10:24-PDT.AMC>
(13) Msg# 067
-------
10-MAY-78 22:10:07-PDT,1619;000000000001
Mail-from: USC-ISI rcvd at 26-JUN-75 1108-PDT
Date: 26 JUN 1975 1051-PDT
From: DCROCKER at USC-ISI
Subject: MSGGROUP# 067 Secretaries Answering Boss' mail
To:   [ISI]<Farber>MessageGroup.List:
(14) Msg# 097
(15) Msg #1184 IFIP 6.5
(16) Ibid., page 12.
(17) Msg #1429
(18) Msg #1411
(19) Msg. #1365
(20) Farber and Baran Report
(21) Msg #455
(22) Farber and Baran Report
(23) Msg #1427
(24) Msg #1285
(25) Msg. #1326
(26) Msg. #1239
(27) Msg. 1620
(28) Msg. 1622
(29) Msg #1623
(30) Msg. #1631
(31) Msg #680
(32) Msg #1549
(33) Msg #1550
(34) Msg #1552
(35) Msg #1553
(36) Msg. #1605
(37) Msg #624
(38) Msg #1192
(39) Msg #1565
(40) See "The Evolution of Usenet: The Poor Man's ARPANET" by R.
Hauben in Netizens. Also during this period CSNET was being
started by Farber, Landweber and others under a grant from the
NSF to provide online access to members of the computer science
community that didn't have access to the ARPANET. However, there
was a fee for participating in CSNET.
(41) NET.works.0066
(42) NET.works digest.033
(43) Msg. #1721
(44) digest.047
     Aucbvax.5828
     fa.digest-p
     utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!digest-people
     Sun Jan 17 14:30:17 1982
     USENET on a PDP-10?
(45) Msg# 2011
(46) See "Evolution of Usenet" in Netizens
(47)Aucbvax.1531
fa.apollo
utzoo!duke!mhtsa!eagle!ucbvax!halbert
Fri Jun  5 11:14:18 1981
Introduction to Apollo
>From DUFFEY@MIT-AI  Fri Jun  5 06:19:43 1981
Date: 5 June 1981 09:19-EDT
From: "Roger D. Duffey, II" <DUFFEY at MIT-AI>
Subject:  Welcome to APOLLO
To:  New APOLLO Subscribers
(48) fa.apollo.0006
 Aucbvax.1620
fa.apollo
utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!DREIFU@WHARTON-10
Thu Jun 11 06:48:30 1981
(49) fa.works.0017
Aucbvax.1972
fa.works
utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!Rivanciw.DHQ@UDel
Sat Jun 27 12:41:06 1981
  Personal Workstations
(49a) fa.apollo.0017
(50) fa.apollo.0021
(51) fa.apollo.0029
(52) fa.apollo.0028
(53) to check
(54) fa.apollo.0007
(55) fa.apollo.0012
(56) Ibid.
(57) fa.apollo.0013
(58) to check
(59) to check
(60) FA.works.2080
(61) FA.works.069
(62) FA.works.069
Aucbvax.2112
fa.works
utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!works@mit-ai
Sun Jul  5 08:40:37 1981
Re:   Ethernet capabilities of 820 and STAR
>From guyton@RAND-UNIX Sun Jul  5 08:31:49 1981
                        "SDD"                  "OPD"
                +-------------------------+-------------------------+
Location        |     California          |  Texas                  |
                +-------------------------+-------------------------+
Programming     |     MESA                |  Assembler              |
Environment     |                         |                         |
                +-------------------------+-------------------------+
Processor       |     Custom Bit-Slice    |  Standard u-processors  |
                +-------------------------+-------------------------+
Background      |     PARC/Research       |  Electronic Typewriters |
                +-------------------------+-------------------------+
Product Lines   |     Star                |   820                   |
(Partial list   |     File Server         |   850                   |
 due to failing |     Communication Server|   860                   |
 memory)        |     Ethernet            |                         |
                |     Laser printers      |                         |
                +-------------------------+-------------------------+
(63) to check
(64) FA.works.0007
(65) FA.works.0008
(66) FA.works.0017
    Aucbvax.1912
    fa.works
    utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!dcrocker@udel
    Wed Jun 24 07:22:21 1981
    Vendor participation
(67)  FA.works.0014
    jan 12, digest 114
    Aucbvax.5744
    fa.digest-p
    utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!digest-people
    Tue Jan 12 18:54:24 1982
    TCP-IP Digest Frolic
    >From tcp-ip@brl Tue Jan 12 18:51:37 1982
    -Mike
(68) FA.digest.030
    Date: 14 January 1982 00:48-EST
    From: Christopher C. Stacy <CStacy at MIT-AI>
    Subject: For Research Use Only --- Not for Public Distribution
    To: Tcp-IP at BRL, Mike at BRL
    cc: DIGEST-PEOPLE at MIT-AI
(69) FA.digest.035
(70) FA.digest.043
(71) FA.digest.0044
(72) NET.general.0341
(73) Dec. 19 647
(74) NET.general.0423
(75) NET.general.0976
(76) NET.general.279
(77) NET.general.0278
(78) NET.general.315
(79) NET.general.0337
(80) NET.general.0088
(81) NET.general.0041
(82) NET.general.0418
(83) Aalice.268
    net.general
    utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!alice!seltzer
    Fri Dec 18 16:57:09 1981
    Newsgroup net.music
(84) to check
(85) Afloyd.73
(86) NET.general.0243
(87) NET.general.0357
(88) NET.general. Aunc.1672
(89) NET.general.0417
(90) NET.general.0419
(91) NET.general. Acbosgd.647
(92) NET.general.0323
(93) NET.general Acbosg.285
    net.general
    utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ARPAVAX:mhtsa!harpo!cbosg!mark
    Wed Dec 16 10:29:01 1981
    Re: more mess!
(94) Net.general.0629
    Autzoo.1447
    net.general
    utcsrgv!utzoo!henry
    Sun Feb 28 02:42:44 1982
    chain letters on the net
(95) NET.general.0229
(96) NET.general.0490
(97) NET.general.0202
(98) NET.general.0204
(99) NET.general.0114
    Acincy.169
    net.general,NET.general
    utzoo!decvax!duke!cincy!chris
    Tue Aug 18 15:24:58 1981
    Cincy goes on an austerity program
(100) NET.general.0663
     Ahouxm.156
     net.general
     utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!floyd!houxi!houxm!mel
     Fri Mar  5 08:53:16 1982
     Please clean up the net
Thanks to several for offering comments on this draft including Peter
Capek.
Last corrected: 8/5/97