3 ms·

What was the email about? Do you have a pointer? Why didn't you want it published? Did you say in the email it was private? Was it in response to something publ

What was the email about? Do you have a pointer? Why didn't you want it published? Did you say in the email it was private? Was it in response to something public? Was it abusive?

hga 16y ago
It was about the broader issues illuminated by an AGIS/Conxion peering conflict that prevented a number of people from accessing his web site in October 1997. I didn't want it published "as is" since it wasn't written for public consumption. There were personal details that detracted from the message, adjustments I wanted to tone down some of the rhetoric and some people (sources) who I referred to who needed better credit and/or real links. I didn't say it was private, but in some of it I was "talking" directly to him. And it was certainly netiquette at the time that email was by default private; he said that was "crap", that he'd gone over this issue "countless times", that "off the record" was a privilege that had to be negotiated ahead of time and that he was "being very generous" in offering to delete it. That message from him left a rather bad taste in my mouth. My email was in response this public posting on his blog, start with the 4th paragraph of this page: http://www.scripting.com/1997/10/16.html http://www.scripting.com/1997/10/16.html It wasn't abusive, although it was harsh on some bad players of the era, like UUNET, e.g. their actions prompted the editor of Boardwatch to commission a cover depicting the head of UUNET planting blue barrels of ANFO in MAE-East and I think MAE-West, referring to the OK City bombing a couple of years earlier. The general issue of the day as I put it in my email: "[T]he ISPs that are refusing to peer with others on equal terms are basically no longer offering Internet connectivity, but are instead offering a private network that happens to be connected to parts of the Internet. As I like to describe it, their unique selling proposition is "sign up with us, and we'll connect you to a steadily smaller portion of the Internet"." UUNET's dominance at that time allowed them to play this sort of game and we still see it occasionally when a low cost provider irritates another. The end result of these power plays as I said at the time was "paying customers of the disconnecting ISP demand full connectivity or take their business elsewhere", although obviously that was a lot easier in the dialup era.

What was the email about? Do you have a pointer? Why didn't you want it published? Did you say in the email it was private? Was it in response to something public? Was it abusive?

hga 16y ago

It was about the broader issues illuminated by an AGIS/Conxion peering conflict that prevented a number of people from accessing his web site in October 1997. I didn't want it published "as is" since it wasn't written for public consumption. There were personal details that detracted from the message, adjustments I wanted to tone down some of the rhetoric and some people (sources) who I referred to who needed better credit and/or real links. I didn't say it was private, but in some of it I was "talking" directly to him. And it was certainly netiquette at the time that email was by default private; he said that was "crap", that he'd gone over this issue "countless times", that "off the record" was a privilege that had to be negotiated ahead of time and that he was "being very generous" in offering to delete it. That message from him left a rather bad taste in my mouth. My email was in response this public posting on his blog, start with the 4th paragraph of this page: http://www.scripting.com/1997/10/16.html http://www.scripting.com/1997/10/16.html It wasn't abusive, although it was harsh on some bad players of the era, like UUNET, e.g. their actions prompted the editor of Boardwatch to commission a cover depicting the head of UUNET planting blue barrels of ANFO in MAE-East and I think MAE-West, referring to the OK City bombing a couple of years earlier. The general issue of the day as I put it in my email: "[T]he ISPs that are refusing to peer with others on equal terms are basically no longer offering Internet connectivity, but are instead offering a private network that happens to be connected to parts of the Internet. As I like to describe it, their unique selling proposition is "sign up with us, and we'll connect you to a steadily smaller portion of the Internet"." UUNET's dominance at that time allowed them to play this sort of game and we still see it occasionally when a low cost provider irritates another. The end result of these power plays as I said at the time was "paying customers of the disconnecting ISP demand full connectivity or take their business elsewhere", although obviously that was a lot easier in the dialup era.