All this sophistication yet we still get unwanted visiting card attachments.
Graham
At 20:32 06/05/1998 +0100, you wrote:
>I will try to pick up each of the points made by Ewan Davis ED
>
>
>ED: I don't understand your comments on network pricing, can you translate
>the management speak?
>
>J : I mean that the cost of networking must be looked at as a whole. Here
>is a real example. An organisation did not want to join NHSnet, it was too
>expensive, it also paid 40,000UKP for databases in its Library to access the
>same data on NHSnet would cost 14,500UKP The cost of the NHSnet connection
>was 20,000 UKP a total of 34,500 UKP. They then used the difference to
>purchase a Firewall.
>
>Summary NHSnet was cost effective. Using the Internet would not have been
>possible the databases were not available.
>
>I use this example because it is real and it shows now the business case
>works. I am not suggesting that GP should spend 35,400 UKP :)
>
>ED: The simple question is why aren't NHSNet tariffs competitive vs other
>ISPs many of whom provide the sort of additional services the NHS requires
>as part of their offering to the corporate Intranet market. Either NHSNet is
>over engineered, overpriced or both.
>
>J: Because it is faster, more reliable will still be here in 10 years
>never mind 10 months. See the Economist article of a couple of months ago
>about the survival rate of ISPs.
>
>ED You comments about attachments are technically correct but in practical
>terms are rubbish. I routinely send attachments of 100's of k to a few meg
>and long ago gave up splitting them in to smaller segments because nearly
>all ISPs handle them as a single item without problems.
>
>JC: Well you asked, it is all about Body Part 14 and 15 of the X.400
>message. X.400 does not handle proprietary attachments that well, it
>will do, it does things like guaranteed delivery and read receipt that smtp
>does not do. These are the features that make X.400 what it is. However,
>there is an ongoing "flamewar"! about SMTP and X.400 No need to add to it
>here. Smtp is good for some things and X.400 is good for others. I
>prefer to think of X.400 as the Registered Post of Email.
>
>ED: There a lots of simple firewalls. Have a look at www.davecentral.com for
>a long list.
>
>JC: I will have a look.
>
>AD: Firewalls become complex when you need to apply complex policies with
>large numbers of users such as firewall between a corporate Intranet and the
>Internet which will provide differential access through the firewall for
>different users or classes of user and allow access to services from the
>outside with complex IP filtering. Such firewalls are expensive and need
>highly skilled personnel to maintain them.
>
>JC: I agree, will a PCG be complex organisation? 200 plus employees
>100,000 patients?
>
>John
>
>Attachment Converted: C:\ZEN\2\winmai18.dat
>
"If you get their heads out of the sand don't forget to get them to brush
the sand out of their eyes! Awareness DOESN'T equal understanding."
------------------
Graham P P Ride, Cybermetrix Ltd.
Free y2k screensaver on our home page.
Year 2000 Information Service on <http://www.cybermetrix.co.uk/plusinfo.html>
Tel +44 (0)161 439 0480 - Fax +44 (0)161 439 1912
Year 2000 services to Health & SMEs & maximising the benefits of the Internet
http://www.cybermetrix.co.uk
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|