fair@ucbvax.ARPA (Erik E. Fair) (08/28/85)
Digested articles, of the form we see in fa.human-nets, mod.std.c, mod.unix and fa.telecom are bad for the USENET, because they don't allow the user to choose what he wants to read. Netnews is geared to performing actions on single messages at a time. A digest breaks this, because there is but one Message-ID per digest; one Subject per digest (usually just the name of the digest and a volume number; of little use for determining the actual content of the message); and one author (or submitter) per digest, BUT *many* messages per digest! This breaks our software in the following ways: Can't respond to individual items in a digest; only to the digest as a whole Don't automatically get mail replies sent to the right place Don't automatically get the right subject Don't get the ability to refer to previous items in the on the specific topic of one subject (i.e. no References: lines). Can't get a table of contents until you start reading the digest (and if you do get one at the top of the digest, you can't select which messages in the digest that you want to read). Therefore, I propose that all moderators immediately stop digesting items for submission to mod.* groups. To clarify, I am not suggesting that we abandon moderation (e.g. the selection of which articles to post by a designated person). I am suggesting that the practice of clumping all submitted messages together be stopped, because it defeats some important features of netnews. Comments? Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU
whp@cbnap.UUCP (W. H. Pollock x4575 3S235) (08/29/85)
Diget articales CAN be broken up IF the news software is smart enough. Readnews does this, rn ought to be able to breakup digests as they come in. Perhaps putting the table of contents and final signiture block as the base note, and individual articles as responses.
jmc@ptsfa.UUCP (Jerry Carlin) (08/29/85)
In article <10220@ucbvax.ARPA> fair@ucbvax.ARPA (Erik E. Fair) writes: >Digested articles, of the form we see in fa.human-nets, mod.std.c, >mod.unix and fa.telecom are bad for the USENET, because they don't >allow the user to choose what he wants to read... > >Therefore, I propose that all moderators immediately stop digesting >items for submission to mod.* groups. AMEN! It is especially bad for people like me who are reading news at 1200 baud. I do think it is ok to group many items together if and only if they are about the same topic. Now if someone hacks rn to overcome Eric's objections and manages to get all moderators (current and future) to agree to use whatever method rn is setup to use that's another matter. Since I don't think its very likely that this will happen, lets stop digesting. -- voice= 415 823-2441 uucp={ihnp4,dual}!ptsfa!jmc
jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) (08/29/85)
> Digested articles, of the form we see in fa.human-nets, mod.std.c, > mod.unix and fa.telecom are bad for the USENET, because they don't > allow the user to choose what he wants to read. ... > Therefore, I propose that all moderators immediately stop digesting > items for submission to mod.* groups. > I agree. What about digests that get forwarded pre-digested, like fa.info-mac? Do we leave as is, undigest it at cross posting, or bite the bullet and add the appropriate digest-reading logic to vnews and readnews? If #3 is the best long-term course, then no administrative changes are needed, only software. :-) Joel West CACI, Inc. - Federal (c/o UC San Diego) {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@SDCSVAX.ARPA
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (08/30/85)
I disagree. The digests are all that make some groups tolerable. Instead of plowing through message after message (most of which will be useless at any given time) I can just scan the digest heading and frequently throw ALL those messages out at once without even hassling with them. If by chance something worthwhile appears in the heading, I go down to that particular message and read it. The percentage of messages that require replies (for any given individual reading news) is incredibly less than the number of "junk" articles that any particular person might choose to ignore. I consider digests to be one of the more useful tools for cutting down on the amount of time required to wade through the muck in search of the gems. Digests aren't perfect, but they sure help. --Lauren--
lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) (08/30/85)
In article <1067@sdcsvax.UUCP> jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) writes: >I agree. What about digests that get forwarded pre-digested, >like fa.info-mac? Do we leave as is, undigest it at cross >posting, or bite the bullet and add the appropriate digest-reading >logic to vnews and readnews? If you have lots of users, the best place to undigestify articles is in inews/rnews, so that you only do the work once instead of 50 times, and you do it at night instead of in the daytime, and you do it when nobody is sitting at the terminal tapping their fingers and wondering if they should go get some tea. The only disadvantage that I can see is if you are tight for disk space, you'd rather have 1 file than n files. (Hmm, maybe inews needs to transmogrify a digest into an archive, and then make n copies of it using links. Then anybody who wants to open an article has to check to see if it's an archive, and zero in on that part of the archive containing the article desired. Yech. How about just making undigestification optional?) I've also been asked to make rn sort articles into chronological order, and have refused for the same reason--I think it should be done by inews. I guess I'm turning into an opinionated old man. Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (08/30/85)
> From: fair@ucbvax.ARPA (Erik E. Fair) > Digested articles, of the form we see in fa.human-nets, mod.std.c, > mod.unix and fa.telecom are bad for the USENET, because they don't > allow the user to choose what he wants to read. Netnews is geared to > performing actions on single messages at a time. A digest breaks this, > because there is but one Message-ID per digest; one Subject per digest > (usually just the name of the digest and a volume number; of little use > for determining the actual content of the message); and one author (or > submitter) per digest, BUT *many* messages per digest! I was under the impression that readnews breaks digests into single replyable articles. As long as the moderator puts a From: and Subject: line into each digested article, I don't see how there can be any problems. In addition, they can put in Message-IDs also, although I don't know how much good that will do for your general-purpose news system, perhaps there are some fancier news systems out there that can cross-reference on an arbitrary Message-ID? > This breaks our software in the following ways: > Can't respond to individual items in a digest; > only to the digest as a whole You can (with digesting in readnews -- is it in vnews yet?) -- see above. > Don't automatically get mail replies sent to the right place If all moderators put in replyable paths including well-known hosts, or at the least put in (or have the submitters include) a path to their machine including well-known hosts, mail replies have as much a chance of going to the right place as if they were posted singularly. I've replied to news articles and been rejected through news-only hosts -- I was usually better off finding my own path to the machine (but those stories are better left in net.mail). > Don't automatically get the right subject Again, each digested article should have its own subject. > Don't get the ability to refer to previous items in the > on the specific topic of one subject (i.e. no > References: lines). Maybe there could be Message-ID's in each digested article and references in the moderated posting to those ID's? > Can't get a table of contents until you start reading the digest > (and if you do get one at the top of the digest, > you can't select which messages in the digest that you > want to read). I thought that in readnews after the digest is broken you could select which ones you wanted to read. > Therefore, I propose that all moderators immediately stop digesting > items for submission to mod.* groups. I propose that we include my suggestions (or at least talk about them), maybe some additional cross-referencing and timestamping of digested articles can be made a part of the news software. -- Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (08/30/85)
I did some playing around with digests, and I didn't realize that the
reply code was not in the digest code! I could've sworn it was. I
suppose that it would be relatively easy to put the reply code in the
digest code, assuming all other things that I suggested in my previous
message be done (inclusion of From: Subject: and other lines that
readnews would want for a news article).
Sorry for the mistake -- it's been awhile since I've looked at the news
sources, or played around with digests. Just base everything in my
previous message on the inclusion of the reply code in the digest code
and we should be ok.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards,
for they are subtle and quick to anger.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@mit-eddie.mit.edusmb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/30/85)
I vote with Lauren -- I like digests. This is especially the case when the moderator takes the trouble to group related messages together, possibly even composing single-topic issues of the digest. As for load -- well, there's a lot of per-article overhead; using digests cuts this down.