HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: When should one use MX records?
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 04:01:48 GMT

dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi) writes:

>    However, you can have an
>    additional A record that gives company.uk the same IP address as
>    foo.company.uk.  If you order the A records appropriately, the
>    primary name can be foo.company.uk, but mail will still get
>    correctly delivered when addressed to company.uk.

What do you do with PTR records in this case?  Is it legal to have
multiple PTR records for a single Internet address?  If not, then mapping
company.uk to its IP address and reverse-mapping it back will give you
foo.company.uk.  I suspect some software will get unhappy about this.
(Actually, maybe not - I thought log_tcp would be one of the unhappy
ones, but it doesn't seem to mind as long as IP->name->IP gets back the
right address).

> c: Several MX records are often assumed to be more reliable for mail.
>    However, it's not clear to me that they buy you much.  Presumably if
>    foo.company.uk is down, mail will remain queued for it at one of the
>    MX hosts.  It might as well just remain queued at the sending host.

If the mail is actually delivered on foo, that's true; but if foo uses an
alias file to deliver it to the users' real mailhosts, then the backup MXs
can do the same, and get it delivered even when foo is down.

Besides, if the sending site is one that's not always up, you risk having
the mail delayed longer because the sender happens to be down when foo
comes back up.  The backup MXs are presumed to be up all the time.

>    A disadvantage is that people won't be able to telnet directly to,
>    or ftp directly from, company.uk.   Alternatives a and b don't
>    have this disadvantage.

For ftp, it seems like there's a growing tradition for having a CNAME for
ftp.company.uk pointing to the ftp server.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."
From: rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (Code-03 LCDR Michael E. Dobson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Whereinthehellis dg-rtp.dg.com?
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:45:40 GMT
Organization: Naval Medical Research & Development Command

In article <1992Oct5.234314.26096@madnix.uucp> zaphod@madnix.uucp (Ron Bean) writes:
>
>   There's a regular posting to news.answers that says there is a
>mail server at dg-rtp.dg.com for the FAQ file from
>misc.consumers.house (so why don't they just post the file?
>That's what news.answers is for...)
> 
>   I've tried sending mail there, but madnix can't find it in the
>maps, and bouncing it off uwvax and uunet hasn't produced any
>results either. Does anyone out there know how to reach this
>site?
> 
nslookup shows IP=128.222.1.2, uunet should be able to find them.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: root@kilowatt.uucp (Kilowatt admin)
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Keywords: question legal use email
Reply-To: root@kilowatt.UUCP (Kilowatt admin)
Organization: Kilowatt Computing of Deer Park, NY
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:58:47 GMT

>Myself, I am 100% in favour of electronic junk mail replacing the
>vast gobs of dead trees that land in my physical mailbox every day.

Ever think about all the petroleum being burned to power all the computers
that will echo this junk e-mail??? It may well do more damage to the
environment than the one tree that will provide all that paper for one mailing.

Do you enjoy receiving solicitation by phone? This does not harm any trees
(other than the polution by burning of petroleum). Think about what you
object to, and for what reasons.

Through the US postal system, the junk mailer will be PAYING for his mailing.
Using the Internet by definition, he will not be paying for distribution.
Which is better? Killing trees (therebye increasing atmospheric CO2) or
burning petroleum (or should I say fossil fuels - like coal) increasing
sulphur dioxide, CO, AND CO2 emmissions?

We do not have to pay the US postal service to receive mail. Yet, we small
systems owners using UUCP or even direct connections to the Internet (or uunet)
have to pay for the service. We are paying above and beyond what we would
normally pay just to receive junk e-mail.

BTW, I did not receive any junk e-mail, but would be EXTREMELY pissed-off
if I did!

-- 
Kilowatt Computing					Arthur A. Krewat
51 Winnecomac Ave.				uunet!admiral!kilowatt!krewat
Deer Park, NY 11729					(516) 586-4743
(516) 253-2805						Consensys SVR4
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: scott@ryptyde.cts.com (Scott McClure)
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Organization: Ryptyde TimeSharing, San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:05:17 GMT
Keywords: question legal use email

pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley) writes:

>In article <rwa.718328220@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
>rwa@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Ross Alexander) writes:
>>pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley) writes:
>>>(It boggles my mind why Mexico hasn't made the obvious retalliation
>>>of kidnapping members of the U.S. supreme court).
>>
>>Mexico doesn't own 75% of the nuclear arsenal on the planet.

>Ah yes.  Thanks for reminding me.  Force makes right.  At least,
>the biggest kid in the global playground thinks so.

Ah, I see.  In that case, your opinion is irrelevant.  
  
Oh, well...  I guess it is time to come up there and assimilate 
your country anyway.


8-)

Scott

-- 
INTERNET:  scott@ryptyde.cts.com                     | "Nuke the homeless gay
ARPANET:   ryptyde!scott@nosc.mil                    |  baby whales for Jesus!"
UUCP:      {crash, nosc}!ryptyde!scott               |    - bumper sticker
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: More unsolicited advertising e-mail.
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<0wpp!cj@dixie.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:26:03 GMT

John> == John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com> 

 John> I do have a cell phone but since making harrassing phone calls to
 John> cellular numbers is illegal in Ga (and maybe nationwide.), things
 John> could get very uncomfortable for you.  At the very minimum, it
 John> could be considered theft of services.  Since the cellular system
 John> bill provides a very nice paper trail, cellular harrassment is
 John> not a good move at all.

Well, John, how can you call it harassment?  After all, it's valuable
commercial information that they're deigning to deliver to you for the
cost of the cellular airtime, and if you don't like it you should
disconnect from the Net...um...phone system.
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: re: DOS based IMPA client required
Date: 8 Oct 92 06:46:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: Tomobiki.MS-C.718526760.1103527590.mrc
Organization: University of Washington
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To: "David J. Hughes" <bambi@bu.oz.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0

There is a DOS port of Pine in either alpha or beta test now.  Send mail to
pine@cac.washington.edu for more information.  It is MIME-capable.  There are
variants for Novell, B & W, PC/IP, and Waterloo TCP/IP stacks.
From: nauen@WRAIR-EMH1.ARMY.MIL
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: University of Missouri (was Mail from Internet to Bitnet)
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:31:00 GMT

In <1992Oct14.212659.8441@wuecl.wustl.edu> jbk1@cec1.wustl.edu (Jamal 
Bassam Kaddoura) writes:

>   I am trying to reach a friend at the internet host: umcnx1.missouri.edu
> at the University of Missouri in Columbia but for some reason I am unable to
> reach this host. I know that the address is valid. 
> 
> Also I know another host on Bitnet:  MIZZOU1 but I don't know how to send
> mail from an internet account to a bitnet account. Another question is how to
> find a person's login? if I know their name because you can't use finger on
> bitnet. 

You may know that the address is valid, but the rest of the world has not
yet been informed.  I say this not to ridicule you but to illustrate that
you cannot necessarily believe what someone has told you.

The name server for the missouri.edu domain says

> umcnx1.missouri.edu.
Server:  noc.missouri.edu
Address:  128.206.2.252

*** noc.missouri.edu can't find umcnx1.missouri.edu.: Non-existent domain

That probably explains why you are unable to reach it.  On the other 
hand, to reach MIZZOU1, you could just as well use their Internet 
address, where finger might work.  If it doesn't, a polite query to a 
postmaster often produces helpful information.

> mizzou1.missouri.edu.
Server:  noc.missouri.edu
Address:  128.206.2.252

Name:    mizzou1.missouri.edu
Address:  128.206.2.2

It appears that your school runs its own gateway to BITNET.  One place 
to get information about it might be from your own postmaster.  If not,
then perhaps from harvey@wuvmd.wustl.edu

Domain:     WUSTL.EDU
Name:       Washington University LAN
Gateway:    MAILER@WUVMD
Gatemaster: HARVEY@WUVMD

Ric
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
From: bill@chaos.cs.umn.edu ( Hari Seldon     psychohistorian )
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Keywords: question legal use email
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:37:16 GMT

In <Bvz690.2L3@portal.hq.videocart.com> kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>In article <p9jprrr@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>wpns@miki.pictel.com (Willie Smith) writes:
>>about it.  That's just the way the net is.

>Lets take a print analogy.  PLAYBOY is a legitimate magazine in the US.  It
>is banned in some Middle-Eastern countries as it displays things which fall
>outside their social "AUP".  PLAYBOY is not enjoined from PUBLISHING, or even
>SENDING the material to those addresses.  However, it may be intercepted,
>and the intended RECIPIENT may be charged with a crime.  Should a copy be
>sent to a "restricted" address PLAYBOY is guilty of no offense -- but the
>recipient MAY be guilty.

dang nab it i didn't know that wasn't allowed? yea right.

>So be it with the networks, IMHO.  If your network doesn't want some form of
>traffic, figure out a way to filter it out and either bounce it back to the
>sender or ditch it entirely.  I will note that it is almost certainly NOT in

so you also are saying that your recpiants wouldn't mind if i mailed
the man pages to them and said that you claimed it would be ok. but 
i'll stop if each of them tells me they don't want it.
man am i glad that i don't have you as a provider, i'll bet it'd
be hard to bill *you* for my resources used for this kind of crap.
ps i'm from in the us.

>your best interest to do this -- if you fragment yourself from others you
>provide a poorer service to those who connect to and with you, and

well how about that. but look it seems to be that only you up there
(in the beginning of this post) are the *only* ones defending this position.
doesn't that tell ya something?? also i note that ya'll are comercial
providers and charge your clients by the volume transmitted.

>eventually if that situation persists your customers will either find
>another provider (if they can) or will be at an extreme competitive
>disadvantage.  Such is the realm of reality.

bill pociengel
--
llbi locgeenpi " i'm a little confused right now"
From: weingart@wesley.imagen.com (Phil Weingart)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Need source for popper 1.8 or similar pop3 server
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:14:24 GMT


I need to find the source for popper version 1.8 or later, or some
other version of pop3 server software which supports the XTND XMIT
command.  If you know where I can find this, please send email to
weingart@imagen.com.  AtDhVaAnNkCsE (thanks in ADVANCE)

______________________________________________________________________________
philip k. weingart                   Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
weingart@imagen.com                                            Indian proverb
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: zbig@wariat.org (Zbigniew J. Tyrlik)
Subject: Re: Helpful Tips For This week
Followup-To: alt.flame
Reply-To: zbig@wariat.org (Zbigniew J. Tyrlik)
Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:10:18 GMT

As quoted from <gate.9e9isB1w165w@global.Gwinnett.COM> by abacus@global.Gwinnett.COM:

+---------------
> 
> 			ABACUS GLOBAL SUPPORT, INC.
>   			  HELPFULL HINTS ON 1-2-3
> 			      FOR PCs AND MACs
> 

I just talked to this idiots over the phone... 
And their explanation is that because it is 
comp.mail.misc <- they feel that misc can carry every trash. 

Lady who was talking with me said that their research department
(I bet some kind of bozoo with overinflated ego) said it....


> 
> 
> 				COURTASY OF:
> --
> Abacus Global Support, Inc.            INTERNET: abacus@global.gwinnett.com
> 9566 N.W. 41 Street                    COMPUSERVE: 71201.1201@compuserve.com
> Miami, FL   33178
> VOICE: 1-800-848-9192    BBS: 1-800-643-3630


Well, if their support comes from their bozoo in research dept,
stay away from ABACUS!


( And call them at their 800 number - let them pay for such stuff ).


_zjt
-- 
********************************************************************
Zbigniew J. Tyrlik             wariat!zbig           zbig@wariat.org
IBM PC SIG Sysop - Cleveland Free-Net    aa609@cleveland.freenet.edu
Akademia Pana Kleksa   Public Access UNI* Cleveland,  (216)-481-9445
E-mail, news feeds, shell accounts        UnixBBS distribution point 
********************************************************************
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3328 news.admin.misc:130
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Date: 10 Oct 1992 02:35:24 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: nigel.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Spiros Triantafyllopoulos (c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com) wrote:
: 
: Anyone remember
: the 'what time is it?' flame wars in the mid-80's?

yeah, now look we have a whole newsgroup to talk about it
(comp.protocols.time.ntp)

anyone wanting to look at old time flame wars should snag the A News tape
temporarily on nic.cic.net:/pub/usenet/news01.tar.Z to see the state of
the art back in 1981-82

--Ed
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3337 news.admin.misc:138
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Date: 10 Oct 92 22:37:21 CDT
Organization: Data Ressearch Associates, Inc.

In article <1992Oct10.212848.6325@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones) writes:
> I'm no lawyer. I don't know what international, British, American, or
> any other law has to say on this subject. I don't even know what it
> says about international paper mail, telephone calls or faxes.
> However, it is clear to me that, in the same way as a ship from
> country A has to abide by country B's import regulations if it wants
> to send goods to that country, a country *should* be able to enforce
> its networking/telephony/postal regulations on those sending material
> to the country.

A country only gets jurisdiction over a shipper after that ship enters
their territory.  Since the shipper that is within U.K. territory is UKNET 
(or JANET, or BT TELCOM depending on your point of view) they are the ones
the british government has jurisdiction over.  The british government
is free to set up a customs node where the network enters their country
and examine every message for material illegal in the U.K.  Shippers and
airlines cooperate with local authorities because they risk the siezure of
the ship or airline that is within the country's jurisdiction.  So likewise
I would expect UKNET to cooperate with authorities in their own country.

What recourse does a country have against an entitiy not within their
jusrisdiction?  Well, they have several options.  They can ignore it, try
to jam it from within their territory, or they can attempt action in
whatever country the entity is in (a lawsuit, covert actions, or even
overt war).  This is much the situation the old soviet union was faced
with the voice of america radio broadcasts, or even the 100 "international"
phone lines that were all routed through moscow.
From: galosirs@fe626.cc.purdue.edu (Rob)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Email UNIX to VMS
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:19:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University


I've been trying for some time now to send E-mail to a friend at kenyon college in Gambier Ohio. She doesn't know much about her system there but she does have an account on which she sends mail locally. From what I've been able to find out, they use VMS5.5-1 and are connected to internet because she's heard of people there recieving mail from other schools. With a little research I was able to find out her address as being sarpolisk@vax001.kenyon.edu. I sent a test message to see if it was OK. I checked t






he address when I sent it by including a verify switch with the send command. The host I was working on here at Purdue responded by saying something to the effect of: Address OK, Message processed. Unfortunately, the message was returned to me as the following:


>Return-Path: MAILER-DAEMON@feserve.cc.purdue.edu
>Return-Path: <MAILER-DAEMON@feserve.cc.purdue.edu>
>Received: from feserve.cc.purdue.edu by fe540.cc.purdue.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
   	 id AA15702; Fri, 25 Sep 92 18:22:57 EST
>Received: by feserve.cc.purdue.edu (4.1/Purdue_CC)
 	 id AB00912; Fri, 25 Sep 92 18:22:56 EST
>Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 18:22:56 EST
>From: MAILER-DAEMON@feserve.cc.purdue.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
>Subject: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
>Message-Id: <9209252322.AB00912@feserve.cc.purdue.edu>
>To: <galosirs@fe540.cc.purdue.edu>

>   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>421 vax001.kenyon.edu: Connection refused by vax001.kenyon.edu

>   ----- Unsent message follows -----
>Received: from fe540.cc.purdue.edu by feserve.cc.purdue.edu (4.1/Purdue_CC)
	 id AA01958; Tue, 22 Sep 92 17:42:18 EST
>Received: from localhost by fe540.cc.purdue.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	 id AA16694; Tue, 22 Sep 92 17:42:16 EST
>Message-Id: <9209222242.AA16694@fe540.cc.purdue.edu>
>To: sarpolisk@vax001.kenyon.edu
>Subject: A test
>Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 17:42:01 -0500
>From: galosirs@fe540.cc.purdue.edu

>This is a test.

  
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

send response to:     galosirs@feserve.cc.purdue.edu

Thank You!
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3372 news.admin.misc:155
From: abacus@global.Gwinnett.COM
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Helpful Tips For This week
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:59:05 GMT
Organization: ABACUS GLOBAL SUPPORT, INC., MIAMI, FLORIDA


			ABACUS GLOBAL SUPPORT, INC.
  			  HELPFULL HINTS ON 1-2-3
			      FOR PCs AND MACs


There is a quick way to adjust column widths with 1-2-3 ver. 2.3 and 1-2-3 for Windows.  Place the mouse 
pointer on the right boarder of the colume title.  The cursur will change to a double headed arrow pointing 
left and right, this indicates that you can change the width of the cell by dragging the pointer either left or 
right.  Once the column is set to your width just let the mouse botton go.

To center a heading using 1-2-3 ver. 1.3 or 2.3's WYSIWYG that occupies several columns just load 
WYSIWYG from the add-in options (ALT F10).  From the WYSIWYG menu, select Text, Align, and 
Center or what ever format you perfer.  Highlight the range of the heading and press Enter.  To align the 
heading with the column it corresponds to, choose Text and Clear, highlight the range of cells with the 
headings, then press Enter.   For 1-2-3 for Windows, select the cells that you want centered then click the 
Center SmartIcon.  

To set your 1-2-3 to go into a directory your in by typing the program name provided that 1-2-3 is in your 
PATH statement.  Open 1-2-3 then select Worksheet, Global, Default, Directory.  Delete the current 
directory then press Enter and then select Update.  This will allow you to start up 1-2-3 from any directory 
you in and work with the worksheets saved in that directory.

To move around a large spreadsheet quickly and efficiently you can use the F5 (GOTO) key for the range 
prompt or F3 (NAME) for a short list of range names.  By pressing F3 twice, you can see a full screen 
listing of range names.

				COURTASY OF:
--
Abacus Global Support, Inc.            INTERNET: abacus@global.gwinnett.com
9566 N.W. 41 Street                    COMPUSERVE: 71201.1201@compuserve.com
Miami, FL   33178
VOICE: 1-800-848-9192    BBS: 1-800-643-3630
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3291 news.admin.misc:105
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Keywords: question legal use email
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:46:32 GMT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

I think the reaction here was far, far beyond what was necessary.  The only
appropriate response is something that I've done many times myself, which
is to respond with a message saying "please take me off all your mailing
lists and don't send me anything unsolicited again".  Revenge tactics are
childish, counterproductive, and waste far more of the net's precious
resources than the original act did.

c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:

> As it should be. Any retaliation should achieve several goals:
>
> a. make sure the incident (mistake :-)) does not happen again from the 
>    original site

A simple 1-line note will take care of that.

> b. make sure that others are discouraged again from trying the same
>    thing

Nothing will do this.  The problem will only ever be repeated by new-
comers who have never heard of any prior incidents.  You can't discourage
the people who haven't joined the net yet.

Finally, any approach that uses the word "retaliation" is very misguided.

For god's sake, people, be a little more mellow.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3361 news.admin.misc:152
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Distribution: world
Organization:  One of these days for sure
X-News: HERMES MMAIL 1.04 Rev. Sep  5 1992
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
	<lamp0rr@dixie.com> <1992Oct12.105329.23365@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:14:34 -0700

In article <lamp0rr@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>>Perhaps you ought to learn something about
>>international networking before you assume it's all run from the USA.
>
>First, of course, we'd have to care.  Just as an experiment sometime,
>print out the Brian Reed's postscript maps.  Notice where about 99.9% of
>all connections anchor one end or the other.  Note the country involved.  Then
>crawl back out on your leaf and be quiet.

    Classic, John, just classic. " We've got the most sites, so we can
make whatever rules we feel like." A truly wonderful example of how
international networking can really help to bring together people
from all over the world. So they can get into flame wars.

    And of course, the laissez-faire position you're defending that says
it's ok to send unsolicited junk email would have to mean that it's also
ok to bounce the same mail back, with perhaps the entire man directory
appended, n'est pas. After all, sauce for the goose and all that.


-- 
       John Henders      jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca
    I think your "evolutionary scale" needs an adjustment.  Either 
      that, or you've got your thumb on it. -> (lefty@apple.com)

Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc