Message-ID: <bnews.watmath.4138>
Path: utzoo!watmath!bstempleton
X-Path: utzoo!watmath!bstempleton
From: watmath!bstempleton
Date: Tue Dec 28 04:57:00 1982
Subject: The USENET corporation, a whole new way to run usenet
Posted: Mon Dec 27 16:15:41 1982
Received: Tue Dec 28 04:57:00 1982

What follows is an idea that germinated from the various net engineering

>From what I can tell, a great deal of money is being spent on usenet.
My impression is that any long distance, 1200 baud net.all + mail link
is costing at least $100 per month.  That's a fairly big sum if you multiply
it by the number of links in the net.  (I would appreciate exact figures
from anybody who is paying bills.  I expect my figure is conservative)

Here's what to do:  Set up "The Usenet Corporation".  To do this, get a
unix machine (or several) and put it on a public network like telenet or
tymnet.  Depending on load, something as simple as a pair of workstation
type micro based machines might do.  If DEC sees a big saving over their own
decvax phone bill, they might contribute a vax 750 or large 11 to the cause.

Now rewrite uucp and netnews software to work over the public net, making
it more efficient, possibly using batching and data compression.  Perhaps
support B news on one machine and notesfiles on another.

Next allow sites to connect.  At first allow anybody, but as the load increases,
only allow one major site per local calling area or city.  They can all call their
local telenet/tymnet/datapac number and thus have NO long distance charges.
If they have a private hookup, they can even get a faster buad rate.

Bill your customers:  A fixed rate for a netnews connection would be in
order.  A typical connection would include sending netnews over collect calls
on the public network.  The site would be required to poll the central machine
for news.   In addition to this allow mail connection, billed by the volume of
mail sent.   Allow a mail only connection, too.  For those who want speed,
have long distance autodialers for mail which they have to pay for.  No
autodialing on news, although allow an autodialed message that says
"Call me for news".   Reduced rates if the customer pays the public network
charges (you can if you have a private node) or if the customer is local
to the computer or dials it non-collect over normal bell.

There are several advantages to this:

1) All major sites are only one hop away from the centre of the network.
This is true for news and mail, and the central network node can play the
role of the arpanet "network information centre".  By this, I mean it will
maintain a central site database and mail aliaser so that internet addressing
will come to the net earlier.  For a certain fee, individuals could get
aliases on the central machine(s) as well.

2) Phone costs are reduced quite a bit - bad news for AT&T, whom a lot of
you work for, but you have a fair amount of freedom anyway.

3) A paid programmer in the employ of the net corporation could spend
some real time maintaining the net software, including news etc.  He could
also be a general person for uucp queries etc.

4) Moderators, if any, could sit on this machine, dialing into it from anywhere
in the public net world.

5) Connection could be made to other forms of nets.  An arpanet gateway should
be on this machine, or if that is not possible, one hop away, perhaps by
dedicated line.  In addition, connections could be made to facilities
outside such as "The Source" and "Comshare".  These companies might pay quite
a bit to be able to send inter-machine mail and to receive netnews.

6) Personal computers might be able to link up to this.  There are hundreds of
"BBS" systems that would love to get usenet, even if they were only limited
to receiving it.

7) This company could write mail interface software for all kinds of OS's and
link more and more machines up.

-------How to fund it-------
1) Subsidiary of USENIX.   They collect fees and make it non profit.
2) Profit-making corporation.
3) Grants from government organizations interested in nets, such as the DoD,
NSF and NSERC (canadian).

As far as the second alternative is concerned, I would like to see how
possible this is.  How many would sign up?  How much would it cost to run.

To do this, I would like all site administrators who would be interested in
such a scheme to mail me just how much they think they should pay for a basic
netnews connection via this method.

Mail Brad Templeton at decvax!watmath!bstempleton

Message-ID: <bnews.crystal.149>
Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!seismo!uwvax!solomon
X-Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!seismo!uwvax!solomon
From: uwvax!solomon
Date: Sat Jan  1 02:38:08 1983
Subject: Re: The USENET corporation, a whole new way to run usenet
References: <bnews.watmath.4138>
Posted: Thu Dec 30 09:18:57 1982
Received: Sat Jan  1 02:38:08 1983

Your idea of a USENET corporation is excellent.  In fact, it's so good,
it already exists!  It's called CSNET.  In fact, CSNET is more like a
uucp corporation plus more.

One component of CSNET is PhoneNet, which is very much like uucp except
that all connections are made to/from one of two PhoneNet relays--one
at the University of Deleware, and one at the Rand corporation in Santa
Monica, CA.  Another component is ARPANET.  Mail is relayed between
ARPANET and the rest of CSNET with the full consent and cooperation of

A third component is development of software to allow host to host
connection over Telenet.  Prototype implementations are now in service
between the University of Wisconsin, Purdue University and the
University of Deleware.  When this software is released sites that are
willing to pay the cost of connecting to Telenet will have all the
services of PhoneNet and more:  A high-bandwidth real-time connection
to any other CSNET/Telenet site that can be used for file transfer and
for remote login.  CSNET is developing this software for VAX UNIX
systems.  A related project funded by IBM is developing similar
software for 4300 VM systems.

A fourth component of CSNET is the Name Server.  This is a directory of
users maintained at Wisconsin.  Users of CSNET member hosts can
register themselves in this directory and edit their own entries to
include descriptive information (such as USNAIL address, phone number,
and descriptive keywords).  Anyone who can communicate with the CSNET
Service Host (including all CSNET members) can send queries containing
lists of keywords to the Service Host and get back copies of the
entries that match.  Additional software currently being developed will
allow you to send mail using such keyword queries.   For example, CSNET
members will be able to send mail to "Marvin Solomon" and let the
system figure out how to get it to me.

An organization called the CSNET Coordination and Information Center
(CIC) with administrative, technical, and clerical staff has been
established at BBN in Cambridge, MA.  The CIC oversees day-to-day
operations of CSNET.

What about netnews?  Obviously a mail network like this is capable of
supporting netnews on top of it without any special arrangements.
Bstempleton points out improvements in service that would be possible
with the more centralized organization of CSNET.  Right now, the
organizers of CSNET are more concerned with setting up the basic
services outlined above, but added services, such as discussion groups
and mailing lists are foreseen.  All your suggestions about how to
proceed are very much appreciated.

For more information about CSNET, send mail to

	The CSNET Coordination and Information Center
	Bolt, Beranek, and Newman
	10 Moulton St.  Cambridge MA  02238


	(617) 497-2777

That phone number is a 24-hour hotline.

Marvin Solomon

Message-ID: <bnews.mcnc.1452>
Path: utzoo!decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!trt
X-Path: utzoo!decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!trt
From: mcnc!trt
Date: Fri Jan  7 01:07:07 1983
Subject: Re: The USENET corporation, a whole new way to run usenet
References: <bnews.crystal.149> <bnews.watmath.4138>
Posted: Thu Jan  6 13:18:39 1983
Received: Fri Jan  7 01:07:07 1983

I have trouble with certain aspects of CSNET,
and Marvin Solomon's recent article just troubles me more.
Here are some random points.

1.  "CSNET is like a uucp corporation plus more".
Yeah, lots more.  It does not run uucp, restricts relay sites
to one of a select few, and provides only one service -- mail.

2.  CSNET has a legitimate ARPA gateway.
Yes, but I doubt much of the traffic through it meets
the requirements stated in writing in the CSNET contract.
Several Usenet (and many uucpnet) sites are on ARPA,
but they are not permitted to function as gateways.
Seems mostly political to me.

3.  CSNET has automatic routing.  No more a!b!c!d!person.
That is something that should have been put into uucp
years ago.  Noone did.  It is not easy.
I suspect CSNET solves it by having only a few relay machines
so routing can be via simple table lookup.
This is probably the best feature of CSNET.

4.  CSNET will soon have a name server.
Wonderful!  Something that should be put into uucp as well.

5.    CSNET uses a better naming convention: ' at relay-site'.
No!  CSNET has better routing.  The syntax itself is lousy.
More consistent would be 'person at site at relay-site',
but that starts looking like uucp syntax, right?
And of course ARPA cannot handle more than one at-sign.
Presumably the newer 'person at domain1.domain2. ... .universe' syntax
will supplant the older one (note there is still a single at-sign).
None of this is compatible with uucp syntax, of course.

6.  CSNET is responsive to its customers.
I wonder.  How many CSNET sites are also on Usenet?
How may CSNET sites are also on ARPA?
CSNET supplied a special mail sending/reading program
which is incompatible with all other UNIX mail programs.
Steve Bellovin did not like that so he modified Berkeley Mail
to support CSNET.  The resulting program is now shipped
with new releases of CSNET software.
Do any CSNET sites still use the CSNET-supplied mail program?
CSNET does not permit a distributed bulletin board service (see below).
CSNET does not support an integrated UNIX mail program.
CSNET does not support file transfer.
CSNET does not support an integrated UNIX-to-UNIX communication.
This last part I *do* consider relevant.
In this area we use uucp heavily for machine-machine communication
both over phone lines and over hard wired lines.
MMDF/Phonenet/Telenet cannot currently replace uucp for such things.
So the CSNET software represents an additional burden
placed on the system programmers.
I would like to know why CSNET has such disregard for existing software.

7.  The state of CSNET.
How many CSNET sites are there?
How many sites will be on CSNET by the end of 1983?
How much has CSNET cost the taxpayers?
How much will CSNET cost the taxpayers in 1983?
How many letters has CSNET sent?
How many letters will CSNET send in 1983?

8.  "A mail network like [CSNET] is capable of supporting netnews
on top of it without any special arrangements."
No. *MANY* special arrangements are needed.
For efficiency, a submitted article must be (encapsulated and)
mailed to a mailing list (just like on ARPA!)
so that the relay sites can efficiently distribute the articles.
There could be a single 'net' mailing list
in which case every site gets *all* net articles,
or one mailing list per newsgroup,
in which case adding new newsgroups becomes a tricky business.
Incoming articles can be processed by 'recnews'
or some other mail-to-article conversion program.
Other arrangements are possible, such as CSNET providing
a 'news server' at the relay sites.
Fortunately, Usenet has a good track record of compensating
for the inadequacies of other networks.
Then there are the political and financial problems.
I suspect this is more serious than what is implied
by the quote below:
	"... For that reason, it is [currently]
	politically unacceptable to use CSNET for netnews.  Once there
	is a billing procedure in place (not just phone bills, but also
	cycles on the relay, etc.), anybody who wants to pay for that
	ridiculous volume of junk will be welcome to do so."
			-- Marvin Solomon,  July 1982

9.  UUCP is really awful.
It certainly is.  And so are the various services that run on top of it.
It is too bad that noone supports work on uucpnet/Usenet software.
It is a shame that nothing in the foreseeable future is going to replace it.
	Tom Truscott (mcnc!rti!trt)

Message-ID: <bnews.cbosgd.2941>
Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!cbosgd!mark
X-Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!cbosgd!mark
From: cbosgd!mark
Date: Sat Jan  8 06:14:39 1983
Subject: Re: The USENET corporation, a whole new way to run usenet
References: <bnews.mcnc.1452>
Posted: Fri Jan  7 11:30:23 1983
Received: Sat Jan  8 06:14:39 1983
Reply-To: m...@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)

Actually, I think Tom is being overly negative.  CSNET could support
netnews on top of CSNET mail, because netnews can easily use mail as
a transport mechanism (using sendnews and uurec).  The main reason
why it isn't being done right now, as I understand it, is that the
phone bills are paid from some overhead source (rather than by the
sites receiving the news) and CSNET can't afford to pay for that kind
of volume.  Presumably when everybody pulls their own share it will
be feasable.

However, I don't see CSNET taking an active part in USENET in the
future, primarily because I have seen little or no interest in USENET
among the CSNET organizers.  Marvin Solomon seems interested but in
a low priority sense (and he certainly doesn't have time to do much
by himself.)  My impression is that the rest of the committee totally
ignores USENET.  This situation could, of course, change at any time
in the future.

As to the particular software, I'm not really familiar with MMDF or
PhoneNet, I just assume that ANYTHING has to be better than UUCP.
>From what I've heard, however, PhoneNet software has trouble with
the heavy loads generated by USENET.  What I suppose we really need
is for someone to implement TCP/IP over dialup phone lines (or at
least some reasonable subset of it assuming a dialer or a multiplexed
connection over one or more dialups or some such thing.)

	Mark Horton

Message-ID: <bnews.crystal.154>
Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!seismo!uwvax!solomon
X-Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!seismo!uwvax!solomon
From: uwvax!solomon
Date: Sun Jan  9 02:19:11 1983
Subject: Re: The USENET corporation, a whole new way to run usenet
Posted: Sat Jan  8 09:35:29 1983
Received: Sun Jan  9 02:19:11 1983

Tom Truscott seems to feel that CSNET is competing with UUCP.  In fact,
CSNET was created to fill a specific need and serve a specific
community.  As Tom points out, CSNET is doing a few things that UUCP
should have done long ago but never got around to.

To answer a few specific questions:  As of Jan 7, CSNET had 46 PhoneNet
sites operational and another 12 that have received the software but
not yet installed it.  In addition, there are 19 ARPANET CSNET members,
two PhoneNet relays (Udel and Rand) and the Service Host at Wisconsin.
These are numbers of sites, not hosts; some sites have multiple hosts
with local relaying.  CSNET is growing rapidly, but as you can see it's
still nowhere near as large as the UUCP community.  CSNET was founded
with development support from NSF, but it is to become self-supporting
through dues and fees.  In fact, the first set of invoices has already
been mailed to member sites.  During the period of subsidy, the
management was understandably cautious about the amount and kind of
traffic supported by "the taxpayers", hence the reluctance to support
netnews.  There really is no secret plot to impose censorship.

Some of the problems Tom cites, particularly the need for users to use
a separate mail user interface for PhoneNet mail, have been removed.
More details are available from the hotline number at the end of this

Finally, let me try reassure everyone that CSNET is not operating in a
vacuum or trying to reinvent the wheel.  We are working closely with
Berkeley to integrate CSNET software with the Berkeley version of UNIX,
and the 4.2 release will include CSNET software.  We are also talking
with Bell Labs regarding UUCP/CSNET interface issues.  For more
information, please contact:

	Bolt Beranek and Newman
	10 Moulton St.
	Cambridge, MA  02238
	(617) 497-2777
	uwvax!cic (via seismo, harpo, allegra, intelqa, or ucbvax)

			  SCO's Case Against IBM

November 12, 2003 - Jed Boal from Eyewitness News KSL 5 TV provides an
overview on SCO's case against IBM. Darl McBride, SCO's president and CEO,
talks about the lawsuit's impact and attacks. Jason Holt, student and 
Linux user, talks about the benefits of code availability and the merits 
of the SCO vs IBM lawsuit. See SCO vs IBM.

Note: The materials and information included in these Web pages are not to
be used for any other purpose other than private study, research, review
or criticism.