Article View: chi.mail
Article #790Re: Inter-network mail (was Re: Mail to GEnie)
From: Dave Ihnat
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1992 23:01
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1992 23:01
38 lines
2903 bytes
2903 bytes
In article <1992Jun26.223926.397@news.acns.nwu.edu> learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk) writes: >In the recent discussion of X-400 mail, it was announced that AMOCO >pays 80 cents for a 2K e-mail message handled by commercial e-mail >forwarder. Given the commercial nature of their mail, and the importance >of rapid communications to the business world, I am inclined to think >that the price is reasonable given the relatively small use such >infrastructure enjoys presently. As with all new services, the price will >doubtless drop as the volume increases. > >Based on the discussion, I would think that getting a more universal >addressing system emplaced (X-400 has lots of leeway presently >concerning header info) is probably more important than getting the price >down. Bill, I hate to disagree, but I have to. Electronic mail has been around, in one form or another, for a long time--MCI Mail for instance, has been around since the early '80s. But no other electronic mail medium moves the volume and number of messages that the internet moves--either the networks that comprised the old Arpanet, and are now collectively referred to as the Internet, OR the UUCP-linked portion of the system. Yet there's not guarantee of delivery--in fact, messages do get misrouted or lost--and no guarantee of privacy. So why is it so popular? Because it's both widespread, and affordable. Notice I didn't say free--although many of the links *are* free, save the cost of a phone call. I said affordable. Once you're talking $.80/2K, messages like this one just aren't worth it. The only thing that's going to make a more universal addressing system work, and be worth doing, is the already-emplaced base of internet sites. All that will do, by the way, is allow a greater commercial use of the network; we've already got a huge following outside that arena. It'll be easier to get mail between extant networks, for everyone; I just hope we don't see the semi- volunteer nature of the network go away. Cheap and workable beats perfect and expensive any day. This is the real world. Dave Ihnat ignatz@homebru.chi.il.us (preferred return address) ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Jun27.230137.6317@chinet.chi.il.us>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!uchinews!machine!chinet!ignatzReferences:
<1992Jun13.165624.5694@ddsw1.mcs.com> <1992Jun20.205516.11257@chinet.chi.il.us> <1992Jun26.223926.397@news.acns.nwu.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f8d04,38f73d7ae6fb76fe X-Google-Attributes: gidf8d04,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-06-27 14:58:10 PST Newsgroups: chi.mail Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!uchinews!machine!chinet!ignatz From: ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us (Dave Ihnat) Subject: Re: Inter-network mail (was Re: Mail to GEnie) Summary: I don't think so... Message-ID: <1992Jun27.230137.6317@chinet.chi.il.us> Sender: Dave Ihnat Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1992 23:01:37 GMT References: <1992Jun13.165624.5694@ddsw1.mcs.com> <1992Jun20.205516.11257@chinet.chi.il.us> <1992Jun26.223926.397@news.acns.nwu.edu> Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX Lines: 38