From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: The bogus Nixpub Posting
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 01:12:35 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

cain_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:

>I agree with the author of the list .. what is the point of putting
>dixie.com in a list of online public access unix sites if you're not
>prepared to have the phone number listed?  I think that your argument
>that "hackers" will get in if they know the number is rather silly
>-- there are many thousands of online public access systems around
>the world, virtually all of them are listed on some list somewhere ..
>they seem to get on okay.

Public access is not, at least to me, like a public toilet where anyone
who wants to can stroll in and use the facilities.  I choose NOT to
deal with the problems of anonymous users, hackers and all the other
stuff I put up with when I ran a BBS years ago.  I guarantee my
users practically no busy signals which means I spend lots of money
(world's largest toll-free LATA comes at a steep price) on phone 
lines, modems and ports on the box.  I'm sure they'd be less than 
pleased to know someone who is not paying is using those resources.
That part is, of course, beside the point.  I choose to run Dixie
this way and that's the way it will be.

>Anyway, it is his list, so it's HIS choice as to which conditions
>he attaches to whether a system is listed.  If you object then why
>not spend the many hours required and put together your own list
>of systems not prepared to publish their phone number.

I believe if you'd read all my post you'd have noticed that I DID 
volunteer to maintain such a list.  I already maintain several other 
lists so what's another?  As to "many hours", not if he knows 
what he's doing.

Of course it is his list.  The problem I have is that he represents it 
as comprehensive and nowhere that I've seen does he disclaim the fact
that the list represents only those sites that operate the way he
wants them to.  

It should be noted that his list also excludes any sites who choose not to 
operate as a BBS.  Gwinnette.com, for example (unless he's changed
recently) does not have ANY shell logins and provides only uucp news
and mail service.  That appears to satisfy most of the people since
I see most of my users operating exactly the same way.

>>Your restrictions makes your list highly bogus.  You have automatically
>>excluded ALL public access sites in Atlanta
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>But aren't there only TWO "public access" sites in Atlanta?  Two
>systems missing from out of 130 doesn't automatically make the

Problems finishing the sentence?  I believe I noted that there are only
two public access sites.  Neither of us chooses to open an anonymous
port and so Nixpub lists nothing for Atlanta.  I had wondered why I got
so many questions as to why we weren't listed in Nixpub.  Now I know.
Would you want to speculate as to how many OTHER sites there are besides
our two?

John

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Xref: sparky alt.bbs:5528 comp.bbs.misc:780