From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Nov 23 12:34:33 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id MAA27383
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 12:34:33 -0800
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA27374
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 12:34:29 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA25115; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 12:28:40 -0800
To: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
cc: me@gw.muc.ditec.de, terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 2.1.0-RELEASE now available! 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 23 Nov 1995 12:14:45 CST."
             <199511231814.MAA08437@brasil.moneng.mei.com> 
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 12:28:39 -0800
Message-ID: <25113.817158519@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> I would suggest using NNTP strictly as a transport protocol.  Bury the
> articles in an encoded format in a moderated newsgroup, so that people don't
> try to use the transport newsgroup to read or post messages.  At each hub,
> you can install channel feeds for the transport newsgroup that pipe the
> articles into an extraction/verification filter.  The filter then turns
> around and submits the decoded and verified message into Sendmail (and/or
> INN under a different group name).

I would say that if our postmaster agrees with this, and wants to do
it this way, then it's purely his business and you guys should just
set it up.  Not to sound perfunctory about it, I'm simply trying to
make the point that if it makes his life easier and delivers better
service (which is a big goal of his little department) then he should
use whatever tools are available and nobody has any *place* shooting
it down.  Likewise, since he's doing the work, if he decides he can't
or doesn't want to deal with the complexity then we really can't force
him to say yes.

His area of responsibility, hence his decision.

To me, it actually sounds pretty cool! :-)

						Jordan