response 25 of 90:

Sep 16 14:47 UTC 1996

Re 24: But then you're shutting out all the people who don't have valid e-mail
addresses, such as users who log on from public libraries.  I'd like them to
be able to use Backtalk too.

Re 20 and 23: I agree: encourage people to send mail about backtalk things
directly to people's alternate e-mail addresses rather than forwarding the
mail through Grex.

Re 22: Actually, a favorite system-cracker pastime is to break into a system
and then read other people's mail.  There's a certain "forbidden fruit" aura
to other people's mail that some people find very attractive.

response 27 of 90:

Sep 16 15:45 UTC 1996

I've said this before but its valid more so if the idea is to
provide web users email.  Restrict off-site (any mail that leavesor
comes outside grex) to members only.  This would help solve the
e-mail overflow *AND* make it more practical to give e-mail
addresses to users using the web interface.  The idea is that e-mail
should be offered on grex free only as a companion to the conferences
and for grex user communication.  Grexwide e-mail should be free.
Worldwide e-mail privildege should be a member perk.  Such a policy
would likely increase memberships as well.

Since users shouldnt be put in a position of receiving email they
cant respond to, it would need to be restricted both incoming and 
outgoing.  Grex should be providing e-mail addresses so that users
on grex can communicate with each other, that is a service that
is reasonable to offer free.  

One other possibility if this is too extreme would be to restrict it
such that only members can receive e-mail from commercial sites like
AOL.  Surely it could be set up so that grex bounces any incoming
e-mail that isnt coming from a .org or .edu site.  This would
eliminate the spamming dangers for the most part and end up making
POP more feasible to offer.

response 29 of 90:

Sep 16 17:21 UTC 1996

No Picospan hacking needed, I'd think. If it's just a feature
that Backtalk users will use, then Backtalk can do the tagging.

response 31 of 90:

Sep 17 16:08 UTC 1996

I really think Pop should be offered.  Maybe the mail overflowcan
be dealt with simply by adopting a policy on how many pieces of mail
any one user login can receive in a 24 hour period.  Staff can
exempt their own logins from this obviously so they dont become
email inaccessible at any time.  But I dont think many other users
would be affected if the limit was say ten pieces of mail a day.

response 33 of 90:

Sep 17 16:58 UTC 1996

#32...would it be possible to add some code that would keep a
log of a user's email and bounce excesive email sent from one
address to that user?  

With this, the limit could be say 20 pieces of email and no more than
say five from any one user.  Unlimited email both ways could be a member
perk.  This would make such restrictions more palatable.  I see
nothing wrong with limitng the size of non-member/staf mailboxes
particularly if it allows POP to be practical.

response 35 of 90:

Sep 17 20:19 UTC 1996

Yep, by the time we came up with a plan to allow POP that everyone
would think was fair, it would take several hundred hours to implement
it.  The more complex the requirements, the less I like the idea.

response 37 of 90:

Sep 18 05:21 UTC 1996

That too.

response 39 of 90:

Sep 18 14:49 UTC 1996

How?

response 41 of 90:

Sep 18 16:55 UTC 1996

Actually, BackTalk isn't going to make teh system faster, most likely.  If
anything, it has to do more processing, and send more stuff over the link,
than Picospan does.  What makes BackTalk interesting is that it is going to
make it much easier for people to conference without having to learn how to
use PicoSpan.

The problem with POP is that there is such high demand out there for a free
POP server (staff gets an incredible amount of mail asking about that) that
I don't think there is any way tha tGrex could possibly support that kind of
demand.  Grex *does not have the link bandwidth or disk space to support the
users we have now*.  If we open ourselves up to thousands of people out there
looking for a free POP server, most of whom will never log into Grex, will
never find out what Grex is or how it is supported, and will never donate
anything, Grex will most likely collapse.  

If anybody wants to put up a POP server, and is willing to put up the money
to support it, I'll happily listen and work to get it going.  Without the
money to support it, it just isn't going to work.

response 43 of 90:

Sep 18 18:27 UTC 1996

Re 42 - Actually, I think most of us at the time UNDERESTIMATED the
demand we would get.

response 45 of 90:

Sep 19 00:34 UTC 1996

I think half the reason party and picospan aren't worked on much is that they
are, overall, damn reliable programs that run fine for great periods of time
and REQUIRE little maintainence, regardless of how much time one jhas to spend
on them.

response 47 of 90:

Sep 21 05:21 UTC 1996

   A few users have commented that many people would use Grex's POP server
exclusively.  That's not entirely correct.
   On M-Net, last I checked, the POP server didn't update the last logon
time.  I assume this is true with other POP servers, too.  So, users who
wanted just POP mail would have to telnet in or log on in Backtalk at
least occasionally in order to maintain their account.
   Of course, they don't have to do anything once they log on, so it is
partially correct.

response 49 of 90:

Sep 25 21:05 UTC 1996

In my opinion, POP servers are available eslewhere and Jan has come up with
a perfectly good answer to the question of how to handle mail to people who
don't have GREX accounts.  Therefore GREX doesn't need a POP server. It would
only hurt the people who *do* have GREX accounts.