From mara@panix.com Sun Apr 30 09:58:01 1995 Path: panix!not-for-mail From: mara@panix.com (Cobra Woman) Newsgroups: panix.questions Subject: Re: how to start an e-mailing list? Date: 25 Feb 1995 10:03:11 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 40 Message-ID: <3ingrf$pj@panix2.panix.com> References: <3i2nca$rdt@panix3.panix.com> <3i4qc4$imi@panix3.panix.com> <3i84q3$hqs@panix.com> <3iccan$epn@panix.com> <3iioib$t5i@panix.com> <3il850$134@panix.com> <3ilpns$pgp@panix2.panix.com> <3img5j$o84@panix.com> Reply-To: mc@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com genders@panix.com (Gita Enders) writes: >I thought Simona's descriptions were also clear. So did I, but they were less recent than Gord's. > My question, however, >reflects my curiosity about when the load on panix becomes the >responsibility of the customers. I'm sorry? If you're running a process that prevents anyone else >from running a process, it is the responsibility of Panix staff to stop your process. If someone else is it's the responsibility of Panix staff to stop theirs. If you need to do something that's very CPU intensive and you talk to us about it, we'll probably try to figure out a way (or at least: figure out whether there's a way) to let you do it. But I thought we were talking about running mailing lists. >Suppose one individual wanted to compile all day, but another merely >wished to read mail? It seems the passive user would be subsidizing the >CPU-intensive, just like NYNEX business customers subsidize the >residential users! I'm not sure why you phrase this so as to suggest that reading mail uses less of Panix's resources than compiles. Yes, now and then we do have a bulky compile (but that's _much_ more likely to be Panix staff developing software for Panix than it is to be a user program). >Gita "we're all connected" Enders Panix decides what resources we have and what user options we can afford to make available at different prices. One of the factors involved is CPU demand-- but it's only one. Philosophical discussions are better taken elsewhere. -- Mara Chibnik mara@panix.com Life is too important to be taken seriously. From mara@panix.com Sun Apr 30 09:59:14 1995 Path: panix!not-for-mail From: mara@panix.com (Cobra Woman) Newsgroups: panix.questions,panix.chat Subject: Re: how to start an e-mailing list? Followup-To: alt.dev.null Date: 25 Feb 1995 16:32:52 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 20 Message-ID: <3io7m4$kd7@panix2.panix.com> References: <3i2nca$rdt@panix3.panix.com> <3i4qc4$imi@panix3.panix.com> <3i84q3$hqs@panix.com> <3iccan$epn@panix.com> <3iioib$t5i@panix.com> <3il850$134@panix.com> <3ilpns$pgp@panix2.panix.com> <3img5j$o84@panix.com> <3ingrf$pj@panix2.panix.com> <3io0gf$jum@panix.com> Reply-To: mc@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com Xref: panix panix.questions:25158 panix.chat:20628 genders@panix.com (Gita Enders) writes: >I thought we were talking about UNIX shell accounts, filter and procmail. UNIX shell accounts are available; so are filter and procmail. As with any other service, we may interrupt it if we notice that it is interfering with the ability of others to use the system. If we notice that a process is likely to cause this kind of problem on a regular basis, we decide what to do about it. Running a mailing list is likely to do this; we've said for over a year that this is not a permitted service. When potential customers ask us whether they may, we tell them that we're not prepared to offer it yet. Note followups. -- Mara Chibnik mara@panix.com Life is too important to be taken seriously. From sn@panix.com Sun Apr 30 09:59:46 1995 Path: panix!not-for-mail From: sn@panix.com (S. Nass/PANIX) Newsgroups: panix.questions Subject: Re: how to start an e-mailing list? Date: 4 Mar 1995 17:35:21 -0500 Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC Lines: 31 Message-ID: <3japv9$1rn@panix3.panix.com> References: <3i84q3$hqs@panix.com> <3iccan$epn@panix.com> <3iioib$t5i@panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com In article <3iioib$t5i@panix.com> bru@panix.com (Bruce Wallace) writes: >In <3iccan$epn@panix.com> sn@panix.com (S. Nass/PANIX) writes: >I am about to notify my clients (and potential clients) that I am soon >to be available again. I am assuming that this infrequent usage is ok as >part of my individual account fee. > >Simona >Is there cost-justification, load justification information available? >Are you trying to discourage this practice for any reason? >Perhaps more of the details of PANIX's reasoning is in order. >What do other services charge? I don't know what other services charge. As for why PANIX does not permit such use, it's that it not "individual" use of PANIX resources but rather, as explained very well in another post in this thread, it allows lots of people other than to user to send one piece of mail to the user's account on PANIX and have PANIX mass distribute that to many other places. We're willing to do that for the user himeself (such as when the user sends his own press release out to hundreds of people), but not for a potentially infinite number of others other people as well -- *that's* not individual use. PANIX individual accounts are like an all-you-can-eat salad bar. There's no limit, but it's only sustainable as long as people don't go in and sneak food out to their friends (sharing passwords) or take the food and throw it in the garbage (keep a phone connection open overnight while sleeping), etc. -S. -- Simona Nass Staff Account PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC sn@panix.com