<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: http://maps.vix.com/dul/

=> In this case the ISP can not say that the user has 'full Internet access'.
=> And most ISPs advertise themselves as companies who give 'full Internet
=> access' to their users.
=Full internet access is nonsense anyway. Nobody has full internet
=access, even not the best cracker (I hope).

  I'd like you to be a bit more careful in using terms like "nonsense" ;-)

  From my point of view, "full internet access" in this particular context
  means end-to-end TCP connectivity between hosts, for the full range of
  (mutually agreed) port numbers. And *without* being (invisibly) forced
  by intermediate agents to go through store-and-forward boxes. 
  Whether this intermediate entity is "my" ISP (whatever that means), or
  some other entity somewhere on the end-to-end path between the hosts -
  it doesn't make a big difference.
  There is more than one good reason to hold on to that end-to-end concept
  and requirement. Amongst others, privacy, performance, trouble-shooting,
  charging issues...

=Users can send email anywhere so their access is not limited in
=that way. Users should not care about mail routing, just fill
=in the reciepient address and let the mail systems do the routing.

  This sounds like the description of an X.400 electronic mail service.

=Bang routing is bad manners and not supported much any more.

  Are we talking SMTP mail in the Internet of the late 90's or usenet mail
  of the 70's? ;-O

=Forced use of an html cache is also ok, I think. But that's
=another matter.

  I think you're wrong. 
  But it's a different matter, I agree.
  Wilfried Woeber                :  e-mail: Woeber@localhost
  Computer Center - ACOnet       :  Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33
  Vienna University              :  Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140
  Universitaetsstrasse 7         :  RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144
  A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe :  PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369

<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>