andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (07/02/86)
I hope readers appreciate the equanimity with which I
respond to the latest comments about junker -- some of
which (from those shining examples of netiquette, the
backbone SA's) make net.flame look like a tea-party.
Readers interested only in flaming can just hit 'n' now.
[First, let me say to preserve my SA's nerves that
junker is not run by ubc-cs, ubc-vision, or any other site
that I know of, and does not reflect the official policy of
the University of BC. And it's not responsible for the
latest line-eater bugs, as anyone familiar with it could
see (obviously this excludes Jrrzon).]
I suppose I'm partly to blame for the confusion for
not being clear enough in my description, although some of
the comments show that the writers did not even read my
description. For example, I was posting the shar package
to let people play with it on testbed directories, and to
try to get beta-test sites. Sorry I didn't phrase it in
exactly that way.
--
objections
--
The objections seem to come in four flavours. First
is "junker will break all the news software". I stress
that beta-testing should result in a version that works
completely transparently to the rest of the news software.
The second class of objections is "junker is an
asshole program that no one would want to see running". I
never offered junker as anything but an alternative to
newsgroup cuts. Ask the readers of net.x whether they want
to see their newsgroup go away, or have junker run on it.
I think they would vote for some news rather than no news.
If the people saying "junk junker, preserve the spirit of
the net" are the same ones who say "yah, cut net.x
totally", then they're hypocrites.
The third class is "people will be able to get around
it". People may be able to get around it, though most of
the ways people mention won't work. But (for the last
time, I hope!) *this will not increase volume because
junker imposes a ceiling on the total volume*.
The fourth class is "the other proposed solutions will
work better". All power to everyone proposing solutions;
this is just another one. We may not be able to solve the
volume problem without cuts in signal. Given that, I would
prefer that the signal cuts be *objective*. Junker meets
this criterion; so does *fair* moderation; newsgroup cuts
do not; unfair moderation does not. I kind of support
moderation, but I'm uneasy about whether the signal cuts
will be fair. Is a combination solution impossible?
--
conclusion
--
I don't expect everyone to agree with the above, but
please keep your flames down or send them to /dev/hell. I
will appreciate any indication that anyone has taken the
trouble to look at the shar package and make specific
comments. Volunteer beta test sites still welcomed.
However, if the boycotters threaten to boycott pairs of
sites which use junker on to.* newsgroups between them, I
guess we're in a Catch-22, folks.
--Jamie.
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto, you're beautiful"roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (07/07/86)
In article <299@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > Ask the readers of net.x whether they want to see their newsgroup go > away, or have junker run on it. I hardly qualify as an official spokesman for any of the groups that I read, but I personally would rather see a group go away than subjected to random junking of articles. Of course it's not really random in the sense that junker calls rand() to pick articles to junk -- that part is (if I understand it properly) deterministic from junker's point of view. It is, however, random from my point of view because there is no way I can determine when I post an article whether it will get junked or not. > please keep your flames down or send them to /dev/hell. Don't expect to work up much sympathy for your cause with an obnoxious attitude like that. In fact, I wouldn't have bothered with this followup had it not been for this little jab at the end. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (07/08/86)
In article <299@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > > The second class of objections is "junker is an >asshole program that no one would want to see running". I >never offered junker as anything but an alternative to >newsgroup cuts. Ask the readers of net.x whether they want >to see their newsgroup go away, or have junker run on it. >I think they would vote for some news rather than no news. Here is my strongest disagreement with Jamie. I spend a fair bit of time reading news, and maintaining news software, and even spend some money obtaining it. I would rather see a group dropped entirely than have to pay for and read through a group whose contents have been mangled by the junker. Seriously, what is the point in forwarding articles that have been mangled? I think it would make far more sense to throw away every Nth article going out over a link; at least then the articles that get through would be worth reading. (But no, I don't think this is a good idea either, because of reposting problems). If the problem is news volume, the junker is *not* a viable solution.
steiner@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Dave Steiner) (07/08/86)
So far I haven't seen a need to add my no vote to using Junker. But
as I've read the messages I haven't seen any mention of what I
consider the main reason for not using it. Each news message has some
information content (some more than others of course ;-). I find it
*totally unacceptable* to have a program running that will
[Junker: message to long, middle removed.]
pologise to getting too long winded.
Hopefully you can see my point. It makes messages totally worthless
(or at least has the potential to do so). You might as well dump the
messages on the floor or just remove the newsgroup because reading
them will not be worth the trouble anymore.
Please add a :-) (or a :-( ) to my use of the Junker message in the
middle. This probably isn't the way it actually does it's job but I
think you get the idea.
ds
--
uucp: ...{harvard, seismo, ut-sally, sri-iu, ihnp4!packard}!topaz!steiner
arpa: Steiner@RUTGERS.ARPA or Steiner@RED.RUTGERS.EDUstv@qantel.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) (07/09/86)
In article <299@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > The objections seem to come in four flavours. A fifth "flavour" which has been raised in the backbone mailing list is: there are portions of the net which have no capacity problems at all; they can handle many times the amount of news that is passing thru them. The junker could cause disemboweled copies of articles to be inserted at those fortunate sites. This is one of the reasons why some people don't want the junker run at any site. You were notified of this objection, Jamie, in a letter from the backbone. It also contained other valid objections which you haven't mentioned, as well as congratulations for your wanting to help with the situation. By the way, anyone who installs the junker, please let me know, okay? :-) -- Steve Vance {dual,hplabs,ihnp4}!qantel!stv dual!qantel!stv@berkeley Qantel Corporation, Hayward, CA