1996-02-05 - Re: Imminent Death of Usenet Predicted

Header Data

From: m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
To: “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Message Hash: 87b3e0951b05397e1f50c229b77c131c6cdf0b7175af63c5c81ea1f621575a49
Message ID: <9602051345.AA19001@alpha>
Reply To: <01I0SEGNWJAYA0UTZ4@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-05 14:09:42 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 22:09:42 +0800

Raw message

From: m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 22:09:42 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: Imminent Death of Usenet Predicted
In-Reply-To: <01I0SEGNWJAYA0UTZ4@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <9602051345.AA19001@alpha>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



E. ALLEN SMITH writes:
 > 	Now, this can all be fought in the courts and will likely be defeated..
 > but it would still cause some problems. Am I completely incorrect, or do the
 > programmers on here and elsewhere need to start coming up with a better way to
 > do things?

InterNIC does what it does by general agreement.  It has no special
dispensation from a deity to control internet addressing.

______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX    * I want more, I want more,
       m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com          * I want more, I want more ...
      <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101>         *_______________________________





Thread