🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BOB.90Jun26171239@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
> If the transport mechanisms
> are all on zero-incremental-cost-per-use networks, all is well...

You forgot one very large case: UUNET customers. We pay for the incremental
cost of moving that Chunk Of Stuff ourselves. Why should we have to switch
to an even more expensive transport mechanism? Yes, anonymous UUCP is more
expensive, just from the time needed for the local system admin folks
to set up and debug each individual link... if you guys offering anonymous
UUCP would standardise your chat scripts it'd probably be a different
matter.

Now if UUNET were to provide a method of doing anonymous FTP to their
customers directly, you'd have a case. But they don't, so we need our
mail servers.

The irony is that it's us UUNET customers that are likely the main store
and forward sites you're trying to protect.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.
<peter@ficc.ferranti.com>