🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KARL.90Dec12194010@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes:

>The pipe feeding as far as the gateway host here is T1, of course; but
>CompuServe is not IP-connected, and it's just a 9600bps straw going
>into CompuServe itself.  And we've only got B+ Protocol, not something
>known for raw throughput capacity.  Effective throughput is more like
>4800bps.

Hmmm, that means that whoever asked for it is going to be paying
CIS $24/hour for that same effective 4800bps to download to
their own machine - CIS will get even more if the files are going
into the public download areas to be retrieved by several people.

>We are considering, for the sake of gateway sanity, aggressively
>blowing away anything that clearly comes from or is going to an
>archive server.  This will require some administrative nonsense that I
>don't like, because I _really_ don't like peeking in other people's
>mail.  But we have to get control of the machines again.

Why don't you just attach a header pointing people to the things available
from uunet's 900 number or your own anon uucp, either of which would be
cheaper than the CIS on-line charge if the particular thing they want
can be found there.  If you really have to peek in the messages you
could respond to any directory request headed toward an archive server
with your own info message.

It seems like it would be fair to ask CIS to provide whatever resources
you need to keep running anyway, since if you are keeping a 9600 baud
line busy around the clock that should generate at least $5-600/day
for them in connect time as people download it.

>MBASes: Just Say No, because You Don't Know Anything About The Links
>Between Hither And Yon.

Easy for you to say.  What's the alternative for the rest of us? 

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us