Well...
At 06:01 PM 8/8/97 -0400, Trevor Boicey wrote:
>I'd like to caution against this type of speculation,
>because rumours start this way. I'm sure the Good Times
>crap began like this.
Sorry to disappoint you, Trevor! I'm not speculating. I'm reporting facts
that reside in my in-box. Mail that normally zooms right out was coming
back with holds on it after 4 hours, then after a day. This mail was not
sent to "Shacks Are Us" servers.
Some other mail that needed to be delivered got hung up somewhere, and
caused a bit of a "challenge." It was sent yesterday afternoon. I do not
know if it has been delivered yet. It wasn't as of this morning... I tested
the situation by mailing from one of my accounts to the other. One account
seemed to hold up mail.
The "Good Times crap" began because people wanted to believe the worst, not
because I greed with another poster that e-mail seemed to be slow. I never
bought into the Good Times nonsense (I checked with Texas Net), and felt
sorry for people who did so.
>Carol wrote:
>> The internet has been goofed up for almost 24 hours now.
In your reply you left out this part: "There was some "protester" hacking
done earlier in the week."
That fact was on the National Public Radio news Tuesday night. I didn't get
the entire gist of the story, but one web site was targeted by hackers and
a lot of mail was intercepted and destroyed. (The report described how it
was done -- not too bright -- but I didn't pay that much attention to method.)
I'm not an alarmist, but when other posters (there is life beyond one list)
were having problems similar to what I detected, I sorta' thought that
precautions were being taken by the ISPs to ensure mail security.
Wednesday is when I noticed a pattern-change in my e-mail activity. The
surfing was OK. e-mail was not OK.
My error was in saying "internet" instead of e-mail handling. Sorry about
the oversight.
> There is no "internet". It's a big amorphous glob, like
>a system of roads and highways.
You're preaching to the choir!! However, I choose not to think of the
internet as a "glob".
> My little corner of the world has been fine, but I wasn't
>getting mail either. Implying something might be wrong
>somewhere and affect some routes and some people, but this
>is probably always the case at all times in some level.
Somewhere. Someplace Sometime.
You are absolutely correct!
> I just get antsy seeing rumours started like "the
>internet is broken".
It won't be "broken" until the feds get their collective hands on it.
>> Maybe the ISPs are putting in new "firewalls" or some such...
> Packet handlers don't have firewalls. End users need
>firewalls to protect what they have from people on the
>outside. The bulk of traffic is carried by "packet handlers",
>and the machines are their business. They have nothing
>to protect with a firewall.
Again...poor choice of words on my part. Did you notice the " " around the
word? Read: precautions to protect clients' mail.
Who started a rumour about the internet being broken? I agreed with Larry
that the NORMAL characteristics of the internet AS I USE IT were different.
Maybe I should have made the message to Larry private. I didn't.
Lighten up!
Carol
|