Re: http://maps.vix.com/dul/
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:45:00 MET-DST
=> 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
