mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (05/17/86)
The Usenet backbone has been discussing the problem with traffic volume
for the past few months. Some sites have been forced, by their own phone
bills, or by management directive, to cut way back on the news they carry.
Rather than just have random cuts of various groups by various hosts,
probably resulting in the complete death of many newsgroups (the same way
that net.bizarre was killed) we've decided to try to do this in a fashion
that will be consistent, and allow those who want to continue to discuss
these topics to do so, at their own expense.
Our proposal is to create a new distribution, talk.all. This distribution
would initially be carried by everybody that carries net.all. Certain
so-called "soapbox groups" would be moved from net to talk. Then those
sites who are unable or unwilling to carry the talk groups would stop
carrying them. The list of soapbox groups to be moved to talk is:
net.abortion
(net.bizarre)
(net.flame)
net.misc
net.motss
net.origins
net.philosophy
net.politics
net.religion
net.religion.christian
net.rumor
net.suicide
net.women
net.bizarre and net.flame don't currently exist (although net.flame does
exist in some parts of the net) but could, if the users of talk.all wish,
be created there. The criteria for including a group in this list is that
the group be high volume, low readership, and "more heat than light."
This list is subject to change, for example, net.religion.jewish has been
suggested for inclusion. It has also been suggested that net.women become
a moderated newsgroup, with the hecklers taken off.
Indications from the backbone members are that roughly half of the backbone
would discontinue talk.all, and half would carry them. In fact, of the half
that would not carry them, several have already cut off a similar set of
groups on their own, and the rest were getting ready to. By notifying the
net of our intentions ahead of time, we leave those members who want to
continue to carry these newsgroups plenty of time to make arrangements for
their own backbone. This talk backbone can, of course, include that half
of the regular backbone which will continue carrying talk. (This won't
happen overnight - we expect discussion to continue until the end of May,
at which time we'll make a decision. The implementation will take place
during June, and after July 1, cutoffs may begin.)
We are presenting this to the net in order to give the net a chance to
comment, and to make constructive suggestions for improvements. Please
understand that the backbone is not going to back down on this because
of flames from hardcore participants in these groups, about how we are
obligated as backbone sites to pay your phone bills so you can flame
each other about controversial topics at our expense. We are going to
do something, and unless somebody has a much better idea, the above
proposal (modified by any good ideas from the net) will be implemented.
I must also point out that suggestions such as "get faster modems" are
not going to change things. While many of us already have 2400 baud
modems, and we're always looking into ways to cut costs by improving
the equipment, there are other major costs besides phone bills. These
costs include CPU time to run UUCP and rnews, disk space, the SA's time
to clean up the various messes that happen from time to time, and the
time spent by employees of the various backbone companies reading these
groups, following up, replying, and so on. The major costs are phone
bills, CPU usage, and disk space.
This discussion is taking place only in North America (distribution "na".)
Europe and Australia have indicated they don't want to pay for the traffic
of this discussion, since the groups in question don't go overseas anyway.
This in turn implies that the talk.all distribution would also stay
within the na distribution, not worldwide.
Possible changes to the above include (but are not limited to):
(1) Additional groups to be added to the list.
(2) Groups that should be subtracted from the above list (unlikely to change
the list without strong justification and agreement by the backbone.)
(3) It has been suggested that while we're at it, we create "world.all",
and we gradually move net.all to world.all.
(4) It has been suggested that some groups should become "local" groups
which are kept to one part of the country;
(5) Another alternative is to create moderated versions of these groups.
It would be the job of the moderator to keep out duplicates, repetitions,
excessive inclusions from other postings, and general flaming/heckling.
Moderated groups might go to even more places than the current net.all
groups go, for example, Europe could participate in a mod.politics,
even though it doesn't get net.politics. (We have a mod.politics now,
but it's not doing anything.) mod.women has also been suggested.
Mark Horton
speaking for the Usenet backbonebob@mwhhlaw.UUCP (Bob Hartley) (05/20/86)
The idea of moving the soapbox newsgroups into "talk" is a good one. I was going to list others for inclusion. Then I realized my list would only represent my value judgment on what is important. I surmise that at present, there are two selection criteria for "talk". 1) high volume of traffic and 2) lots of flaming and noise in group. I understand that the problem is cost. But the proposal is to separate out discussions on women, politics and philosophy, and leave in discussions of hockey, gardening and folk music. Yes, the former are abused and probably out of control. But abuse, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Presumably the latter get to stay because they generate less traffic and are seen as better behaved than the former and not because the latter are deemed more socially redeeming or important. If volume of traffic were the sole criteria, jokes and sources would go too. It seems to me that the backbone sites have to define why they support the net. If it so that people in the "computer community" can share ideas about hard science, computers and computer related subjects, then I suggest that all other groups should go into talk. It may be that net will have to retain some groups, such as rumor, jokes and jobs, etc, which people are going to talk about if they are alive and have access to the net. Otherwise these will clutter the computer and computer related groups. I guess what I am saying is that because of the cost factor, I agree some things have to be dumped. Any decision on what goes is going to be arbitrary. If there is going to be an arbitrary line, make it a bright, straight line that everybody can see which is in someway related to a stated purpose or reason that the backbone sites support the net. It should not be an obscure, wavy line that cuts a group with a lot of traffic (i.e. interest) just because those in control don't see the value of the group. I personally believe that he who pays the piper gets to call the tune, and that is fair. So, there is really nothing unfair about an obscure, wavy line. The problem is that most people do not think like I do, and so the obscure, wavy line is perceived as unfair or unjust, and that generates ill will. People will grumble, but live with an unpopular decision that is perceived as fair. People will try to find (and usually will find) a way to circumvent an unpopular decision that is seen as unfair. When that happens the problem just reappears and is harder to deal with. OK. I've run the Graham-Rudman-Hollings proposal up the flag pole. Let's see some workable, fair proposals for a more surgical approach to budget (oops I mean net) cutting. Remember, we are not discussing whether to cut. If I understood the original article, that decision has been made and will not be changed. Also, please, let's not lapse into special interest in-fighting (my special interest group is important, let's cut yours). -- Bob Hartley ihnp4!inuxc!mwhhlaw!bob Indianapolis
turner@imagen.UUCP (05/21/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
would it be possible to get a list of those BB sites that will
continue to carry all newsgroups so that we can look at rearranging
our news feeds ?--
----
"If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes"
-Blade Runner
Name: James M. Turner (not the James M. Turner at Lisp Machine Inc.)
Mail: Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway, P.O. Box 58101
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8101
AT&T: (408) 986-9400
UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!turner
CompuServe: 76327,1575
GEnie : D-ARCANGELturner@imagen.UUCP (05/21/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
boy am i confused, what i think i understand is: if a group is
non-unix oriented and has a large readership (i.e. high traffic
volume) it is a candidate for removal, if it has a small readership
and by implication is not of interest to a great number of netters
it will be kept. hmmmmm.... a better but more painful suggestion
would be a charge back scheme for BB sites, most companies
i fear would be unwilling to pay for net usage; eliminating non
technical "soap box" groups of large interest would turn the net
into a techno-nerd net, they are already talking in atari16 about
limiting the posting of sources to unix pgms only. I value the ability
to participate in a discussion of ideas (tehnical and non-technical)
with the net community and would pay out my own pocket to continue
to do so, so i guess my first suggestion stands. freedom is
expensive!
Also net.jokes must be a candidate for the list or atleast mod.jokes
--
----
"If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes"
-Blade Runner
Name: James M. Turner (not the James M. Turner at Lisp Machine Inc.)
Mail: Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway, P.O. Box 58101
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8101
AT&T: (408) 986-9400
UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!turner
CompuServe: 76327,1575
GEnie : D-ARCANGELsteve@valid.UUCP (05/23/86)
I would like to suggest an alternative: put the
conversion to talk.xyz groups on hold temporarily. In the
meantime, encourage more self-restraint by with respect to the length
and frequency of postings.
This is NOT a proposal for the backbone to just let things continue as they
are. By "encourage," I mean VIGOROUSLY encourage,
with the threat of converting to talk.xyz groups as a large stick held
over our heads.
There is no discussion of the backbone sites' concerns in the
non-technical groups that I read most regularly (net.politics and net.women).
Some of us know that there's a traffic problem, but we don't *KNOW* there's a
problem, if you get my drift. Let's see if emphasizing the seriousness
of the problem will cut the traffic volume.
Some individuals will persist in posting huge volumes of stuff.
That's always going to be a problem, no matter what groups are cut,
and it can be handled in the same way it would be handled if someone
got too chatty in net.news.group.
The posting guidelines we need to follow are obvious; we need to build
a concensus among people using the non-technical groups to adhere to
reasonable guidelines ... OR ELSE!
A. Don't repost huge chunks of articles. Make people go look up the
original posting.
B. Don't post as often or at length. Short, infrequent postings will
have more impact anyway.
C. Be terse.
The advantages to this approach are:
1. If it works, nothing "official" has to change. We all get to
keep posting, AND the backbone sites' overhead goes down.
2. It's in the spirit of free and open communication combined with
individual responsibility, a spirit that is rare and wonderful and
well worth preserving.
3. If it works, it would probably also cut traffic (hence costs) on the
groups that aren't being proposed for talk.xyz.
4. If it doesn't work, the backbone will get much less flack
over making the talk.xyz change, because users will realize
that the backbone has given the net every opportunity to clean up its act.
So it's really a no-lose situation for the backbone.
5. If we don't try it, the groups that get converted to talk.xyz will
probably die. It's very much in the best interest of people using the
non-technical groups to regulate ourselves.
Any comments, anyone?
--
_____________________________________________________________
The views expressed here are my own. Really.
Steve Homer {hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!steve king@kestrel.UUCP (05/25/86)
Has anybody determined how much volume would be reduced if there were a protocol that would allow messages to incorporate pieces of other messages by references? Something like <here goes lines 123-178 of <2139@cbosgd.UUCP>, reindented by ">> "> (placed in an outgoing message which would have a header line Incorporations: <2139@cbosgd.UUCP> which would be inserted by the operation that includes the text of the original.) My feeling is that the reduction would be considerable in exactly those groups that have a problem. After all, the people who send these messages are a small group with finite typing speed. Such inclusions could be found fairly quickly by hashing each line of the outgoing message and of potential inclusions on the last 40 characters of the line. A simple scheme to find these things could be used, since there is no motivation to dodge the mechanism. comments?
gabor@qantel.UUCP (05/25/86)
Perhaps I'm just being obtuse but what's to prevent roving bands of
nefarious net.philosophers and other riffraff from taking over some worthy
newsgroup such as net.sports.shuffleboard or net.rec.lepidoptera, and go on
with their bandwidth-wasting subversive activities? Mind you, I am not
suggesting anything -- just asking. Re-labeling the boxes that articles go
into will do little to affect their content. The question is whether the
net can continue to function as a public medium where everybody and their
brother can post to their heart's content (including common users who could
not tell an L.sys file from a hole in the ground). No doubt the best way to
assure consistent quality and appropriate subject matter would be to restrict
posting privileges to those who are in a position to judge such things: the
Backbone Administrators. I'm sure the software fixes to accomplish this Great
Leap Forward would not take more than a few hours of a net wizard's time --
then we could all sit back, stare at the screen and marvel at our new,
efficient, clean-cut Born-Again Usenet.
-----
Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs}!qantel!gaborlaura@hoptoad.UUCP (05/25/86)
Why reorganise anything? Currently, if you don't like paying for net.abortion, net.misc, net.motss and so on you can edit your /usr/lib/news/sys file. Mine looks like this now: ME:all: ptsfa:net,mod,na,usa,ba,ca,fa,to.ptsfa:F:/usr/spool/batch/ptsfa well:net,mod,na,usa,ba,ca,fa,to.well:LF:/usr/spool/batch/well sun:net,mod,na,usa,ba,ca,fa,to.sun:L: lll-crg:ba,ca,to.lll-crg:F:/usr/spool/batch/lll-crg lll-crg:net,mod,na,usa,ba,ca,fa,to.lll-crg:LF:/usr/spool/batch/lll-crg proper:net,mod,na,usa,ba,ca,fa,to.proper:L2F:/usr/spool/batch/proper rtech:ba,ca,to.rtech:F:/usr/spool/batch/rtech rtech:net,mod,na,usa,ba,ca,fa,to.rtech:LF:/usr/spool/batch/rtech And Henry Spencer's and Greg Woods' probably look like: ME:all,!net.abortion,!net.misc,!net.philosophy and so on. I went on vacation and was worried that the disk would overfill, and so had this set up for a while. So the idea that we need to reorganise the net to keep sites from having to pay for groups which they do not want to receive is bogus. Anybody who does not want to receive groups can already set things up to not receive them. What it does do is to make it easier for people to not recieve groups which *other people* have decided that *they should not want to get*. And this is a step in the wrong direction. For some reason, some people have an idea that it would be better if my site kept receiving net.sports.all and net.music.all (which, the last time I looked, nobody on this site has been reading for months)and stopped getting net.religion which people here *are* reading. Consistency is the buzz-word here. But the question remains -- of what value is consistency? Of course, questions of value are primarily philosophical and religious questions, so, naturally, a lot of the people whom I think should be asking themselves these questions are uninterested in them. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/28/86)
In article <8433@kestrel.ARPA> king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King) writes: > >Has anybody determined how much volume would be reduced if there were a >protocol that would allow messages to incorporate pieces of other >messages by references? Something like ><here goes lines 123-178 of <2139@cbosgd.UUCP>, reindented by ">> "> >(placed in an outgoing message which would have a header line >Incorporations: <2139@cbosgd.UUCP> >which would be inserted by the operation that includes the text of the >original.) > The main problem with this is also the main reason for inclusions in the first place. It is called *expiration* of articles. By the time a reply gets back to my site from the other end of the net 3-4 weeks after the original article, the original is *long* since expired and gone! How then is the inclusion mechanism going to *find* the article, given that it has been deleted! Whatever solution we apply to the inclusion problem, it *must* address the problem of allowing review of the original material on sites where the original has been expired. I personally try to keep my inclusions as small as possible without destroying the context, but that is a very subjective criterion. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
king@kestrel.UUCP (05/29/86)
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.abortion,net.misc,net.motss,net.philosophy,net.politics Date: 27 May 86 23:47:31 GMT Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) In article <8433@kestrel.ARPA> king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King) writes: > (I suggested an abbreviation for partial inclusions of msgs being replied to) > The main problem with this is also the main reason for inclusions in the first place. It is called *expiration* of articles. By the time a reply gets back to my site from the other end of the net 3-4 weeks after the original article, the original is *long* since expired and gone! How then is the inclusion mechanism going to *find* the article, given that it has been deleted! The problem we are trying to solve here is traffic volume, not site disk space. If we incorporated inclusions by reference, and we compressed files older than two weeks, messages might be allowed to live for four weeks instead of the more normal two. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ?? -dick
robertv@tekla.UUCP (Robert Vetter) (05/31/86)
In article <8522@kestrel.ARPA> king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King) writes: >From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) >>In article <8433@kestrel.ARPA> king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King) writes: >>> (I suggested an abbreviation for partial inclusions of msgs >>> being replied to) >> >> The main problem with this is also the main reason for >> inclusions in the first place. It is called *expiration* of articles. >> [...] > >The problem we are trying to solve here is traffic volume, not site >disk space. If we incorporated inclusions by reference, and we >compressed files older than two weeks, messages might be allowed to >live for four weeks instead of the more normal two. Disk space requirements would increase with longer expiration, but would decrease greatly if - for instance - the above inclusions were limited to 3 internal lines. Rob Vetter (503) 629-1291 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!tekla!robertv "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC (Well, they COULD have said it)
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (06/02/86)
In article <8522@kestrel.ARPA> king@kestrel.UUCP writes: >The problem we are trying to solve here is traffic volume, not site >disk space. If traffic volume is indeed the problem, there is a much less drastic solution. Data compression can be applied to transmitted articles, and undone by the receiving site. Since this is to be done on a link by link basis, no great sudden change is required; just pairs of sites modifying their communication protocols by agreement. My impression is that site disk space in fact *is* part of the problem. Data compression would be a possible solution here, too. This could still be done on a site by site basis; however, all the news software at the site would have to be replaced at once, not just the news transmission software. Any volunteers to write versions of the news software to deal with compressed news files? Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
ph@wucec2.UUCP (06/09/86)
In article <1532@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > Data compression can be applied to transmitted articles, and >undone by the receiving site. As was the case with a previous suggestion, this is _already_ done. Please, folks--I'm sure your sentiments are appreciated, but it would be much more useful if you first learned some more about about how the existing setup works before firing off ideas like this. --pH /* * "Aye, sir--the more they overthink the plumbing, the easier * 'tis to stop up the drain." */