From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 372072646a1af10a6005947e10588c70cfc99a3a8ffa15107dd255655c3dae44
Message ID: <199501070557.VAA12227@netcom18.netcom.com>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950107000218.29538D-100000@unix2.netaxs.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-07 05:57:33 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 21:57:33 PST
From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 21:57:33 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Netcom is not a good example (Was: Re: Files and mail)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950107000218.29538D-100000@unix2.netaxs.com>
Message-ID: <199501070557.VAA12227@netcom18.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Michael Handler <grendel@netaxs.com> writes:
> Yeah. They only kill accounts when people criticize
> NetCruiser. :-P
> Netcom is hardly an example of a quality service provider.
> They suffer periodic long term news and email delays; their
> service personnel are rude, slow, and unprofessional (read:
> Bruce Woodcock & the above incident);
NetCruiser is a "work in progress" and continues to evolve in the
right direction. Bruce Sterling Woodcock is history. On the
rare occasions when I have interacted with support@netcom.com,
their responses have been both helpful and provided in a timely
fashion.
> Their security has been compromised countless times
This is Unix. Not a problem exclusive to Netcom.
> They are home to some of the most infamous net.kooks and
> net.cretins (like Tom Servo, currently), ...
I suppose I should be pleased that you have not included me by
name in the list. :)
> Frankly, I'd rather have a Winternet account than a Netcom
> account.
Fine with me. As long as *I* don't have to have a Winternet
account.
--
Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
Return to January 1995
Return to “mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)”