🚀 go-pugleaf

> There is nothing that requires that the uucp mail carries NOT ONE
> SINGLE FOR PROFIT WORD.  A little common sense and use of the golden
> rule -- mail through others as you would have them mail through you--
> is in order here.

I have no real problem with your comments on this (though the gateway sites
might, if 5000 PC users submitted "just this one bug report.")  My main
concern here is that I don't want to see the net turn into something where
everybody attempts to free load off of everybody else in order to cut down
on the normal expenses of doing business.  If people get the idea that they
can submit bug reports to vendors via the net, it's easy to keep taking
things to the next logical step.... return patches or new executables via
the net, etc.  This could easily get out of control in a hurry if a company
the size of DEC or AT&T started trying to do even limited software
distribution via the net.  Fortunately, I haven't seen many blatant attempts
to do this sort of thing.

Your idea of a return uucp login seems reasonable from a net load
standpoint, though you could presumably do one better by giving out that
info when the machine is first installed.  This would put the support burden
where it belongs... on the vendor or a user group.  If the user group decides
to do full blown software releases via their *own* net, who's to gripe ?

You're right that the key is common sense and use of the golden rule.  I'm
not about to scream for the abolition of net.bugs.*, net.decus, or other
such groups, even if they are indirectly commercial in nature, as long as
the primary use of these groups seems to be to benefit the net as a whole
instead of just one company.  If everybody would use a little common sense,
we wouldn't have to make an issue out of something like this.

			Doug Hosking
			Convex Computer Corp.
			Richardson, TX
			{allegra, ihnp4, uiucdcs}!convex!hosking