andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (06/23/86)
George Robbins: >It's OK to limit your own internal costs, but it's far too easy for these >mutilated articles to get back out on the net and interfere with the >transmission of the intact article. The mutilated articles getting back out on the net is exactly what is intended. It's *transmission* costs it's trying to cut; the junked articles pre-empt the longer, intact articles. I realize how strange the junker solution looks at first glance. But if you look at it more closely, follow how junked articles would move through the net, and predict the general effect it has on newsgroup communities once it's accepted as part of the news system -- I think you'll see that it can work, if we give it a chance. And it *has* been implemented. >Let's try to improve the net through some kind of generally acceptable >administrative changes... I agree entirely. I would prefer to see some administrative solution to the volume problem, although I think a lot of admins would want to keep junker around as a safety net. Junker is one solution, prompted by my own personal distaste for newsgroup cuts. I encourage discussion of other, *workable*, *detailed* solutions. Will Martin: >Does no one out there realize what a terribly bad idea this "junker" >concept is? It is deliberately introducing transmission bugs into an >already-fragile and problem-ridden system! The intent is that the article files be changed as transparently as possible, with no effect on the other news software. If anyone is aware of any way in which this does not happen with junker 1.2, tell me and I will incorporate the mods in 1.3. > ... the retransmission attempts as people try to get their >articles sent in one piece, extra header overhead as people split long >articles into several separate parts, and so on.... Please read the "Information for Netters on Junker" which comes in the shar package. Such practices are discouraged, but even if they go on, it will not increase volume, because junker's whole purpose is to put a *ceiling* on volume. >...It cannot possibly do any good. Why do not the rest of you see this clear >fact? Maybe everyone is busy unshar'ing it, testing it, and looking at it closely, rather than dismissing it out of hand. --Jamie. ...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "I believe in Santa Claus, and the DoD believes in Ada" -D.Parnas
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (06/25/86)
I still think it is a bad idea. First of all, it is impossible to premempt all copies of an article, because of all sorts of distribution flakies. THis provides plenty of ammunition for repostings. Second, it simply begs for retaliation. How would you like to see it run on net.sources, or net.unix? Third, it can be defeated by flooding the net with bodiless articles. Fourth, it is rude. There are much more civilized ways of restricting traffic. Personally, I wouldn't deal with a site which is known to use such a program. I wouldn't even forward their mail. The net may be an anarchy, but there's no need to try and justify the negative connotation of the word. CGW
brad@gcc-milo.UUCP (06/25/86)
> > I realize how strange the junker solution looks at first glance. > But if you look at it more closely, follow how junked articles would move > through the net, and predict the general effect it has on newsgroup > communities once it's accepted as part of the news system -- I think you'll > see that it can work, if we give it a chance. And it *has* been implemented. > Jamie - I think (in my humble opinion) that you're being a bit naive about people accepting this as "part of the news system". It's just that no one has had this "effect" (or aboration) trash their article yet. I also think that putting caps on the size of postings based on the news group might be more a more usefull concept (i.e. mod.sources would be unlimited, but net.movies would be limited to one page - idealy capped at the time of posting) Well, in the end, it will be interesting to see what happens with this. I've always tried to keep fascism to a minimum when dealing with news, and hoped that others would too. This seems to be a step in the wrong direction. Flames to Dr. Ruth. -- J Bradford Parker General Computer (HyperDrive Beach, 3rd Cabana) harvard!gcc-milo!brad Good Sex is easier than a good slow roll. ("Left Stick! Right Rudder!...")
grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins) (06/26/86)
In article <289@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: >George Robbins: >>It's OK to limit your own internal costs, but it's far too easy for these >>mutilated articles to get back out on the net and interfere with the >>transmission of the intact article. > > The mutilated articles getting back out on the net is exactly what is >intended. It's *transmission* costs it's trying to cut; the junked articles >pre-empt the longer, intact articles. > > I realize how strange the junker solution looks at first glance. >But if you look at it more closely, follow how junked articles would move >through the net, and predict the general effect it has on newsgroup >communities once it's accepted as part of the news system -- I think you'll >see that it can work, if we give it a chance. And it *has* been implemented. I think perhaps you misunderstand - I* pay to have the current usenet load flow into this site, and redistribute it to various other sites. I do not particularly appreciate it when some arrogant fool decides to sabotage that system for my own good. Such controls as you propose belong at the entry point for articles, and perhaps some well documented locations, not a random sites scattered throughout the net. There are meaningful attempts underway to control usenet volume. Whether these are news group cuts, or a an attempt to make the noise groups carry their own load is a matter of opinion. If you want to cut transmission costs, be selective about what you transmit. If an article does not meet your criteria, then just can it and let it try to find some other path to it's destination, *but don't alter it*. * I should be taken in several senses, including, but not limited to - corporate budget, my personal time, and my personal phone bills that you really wouldn't want to pay. -- George Robbins - now working with, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|caip}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (06/27/86)
In article <457@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> George Robbins writes: >If you want to cut transmission costs, be selective about what you >transmit. If an article does not meet your criteria, then just can it >and let it try to find some other path to it's destination, *but don't >alter it*. Hear, hear! It seems to me that there is a real *ethical* problem with the junker, which is that if I submit an article which goes through a junker site, it can come out the other end with my name still signed to something I didn't write. This is not to label it censorship -- that it is not. But it is a form of forgery, in that the article I posted is deliberately altered and then passed on with my name still attached. That sounds pretty unethical to me. Ken Arnold
fair@styx.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) (06/27/86)
I agree with Charley Wingate, and thus none of the sites where I directly administrate netnews (or have influence with the actual administrator) will run the so-called `junker,' and I will effect bypass of sites that do. Deliberate munging of the body of messages is a good way to destroy the USENET. Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu styx!fair fair@lll-tis-b.arpa
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/27/86)
[ this line is here to protect me from the infamous bug ] > I realize how strange the junker solution looks at first glance. > But if you look at it more closely, follow how junked articles would move > through the net, and predict the general effect it has on newsgroup > communities once it's accepted as part of the news system -- I think you'll > see that it can work, if we give it a chance. And it *has* been implemented. If you want to see what the end results of the 'junker' program is, take a close look at what happened to the net after the infamous white space bug released with 2.10.2 on the 4.2 tape. First, messages have random parts of their data eaten at random parts of the net (sounds like Junker). Result: some people see it all, others don't. Those that don't complain. The article gets reposted, sometimes multiple times. Someone PLEASE tell me how this is going to reduce volume, or why people who have their articles eaten by Junker will do anything different than they did with the bug? Second, the net built an entire culture based on bug-eater lines. The functionality of the bug is that if an article starts with whitespace, a part of the message is eaten, so people started putting funny sayings at the start of their message to prevent this. The functionality of Junker is well known. People will be able to invent ways around it. And they will, don't worry about that one. Junker is destructive. Junker is nothing more than net vandalism. Junker is bad. I not only won't support the use of Junker, I will go so far as to forge my header paths so that any article I post will never GO to any site running Junker (this is called a boycott). If/when I am forced to do this, I will post the forging software to the net so that others can also boycott sites that run Junker. If they want to be vandals, they can do it on someone else's message. chuq -- :From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid: Chuq Von Rospach chuq%plaid@sun.COM FidoNet: 125/84 CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq Dessert is probably the most important stage of the meal, since it will be the last thing your guests remember before they pass out all over the table. -- The Anarchist Cookbook
rodrique@hplabs.UUCP (Mike Rodriquez) (06/27/86)
I am not going to debate the relative merits of junker except to say that if you don't understand why it is a bad idea to mangle usenet articles, maybe you don't belong on usenet. Volume of traffic *will* be dealt with.....groups may not be carried by a given site, etc, but for those groups that are carried, the articles should be sent intact. Having said that, let me also go on record as stating that hplabs absolutely will not use junker. In fact, we will drop our feeds to any sites that do choose to use it. Mike Rodriquez
lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) (06/28/86)
Any "solution" to the Usenet problem which people feel they can righteously get around WILL be gotten around, and is therefore next to useless. I suspect most people on this net feel that it is wrong to transmogrify other people's articles, and therefore that it is okay to get around or otherwise disable Junker sites. We'll just see higher overhead because of articles split into smaller pieces and retransmitted. I am personally considering some changes to the news software that will automatically give Junker sites lots more junk to play with. Sort of turn them into black holes. It works like this: if we can fill up the Junker's /usr/spool every night, he probably won't be able to "process" and transmit as many articles. 1/3 :-) [Sacrificial line for the Junker] Seriously, this Junker idea is neither good nor workable. Does it have anything whatsoever going for it, apart from giving the implementors an ill-defined and misbegotten sense of having done the world good? Strewing the net with half-stomped articles is not my idea of doing the world good, and if attempted will be met with sticks, stones, pitchforks and an occasional pipe bomb. Requisite quote: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Larry Wall sdcrdcr!lwall