roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (12/04/85)
Today I got a newgroup message for net.os, and a checkgroups message from spaf@gatech which tells me to remove it; clearly a phase error. Instead of people sending out newgroup messages themselves when a group is to be created, just why not just send the request to spaf@gatech? He can add it to his list and send out the actual newgroup himself. This will keep the "official" list in sync. I see that mod.recipes got off to a shaky start because some of the articles got to sites before the newgroups. Would it be a good idea (at least for mod groups) to send out newgroup messages once a day for a couple of days before posting anything to the group? This will give the dust a chance to settle, and let SA's catch up on manual group creations. -- Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy> System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
reid@glacier.ARPA (Brian Reid) (12/05/85)
In article <2041@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > I see that mod.recipes got off to a shaky start because some of the >articles got to sites before the newgroups. Would it be a good idea (at >least for mod groups) to send out newgroup messages once a day for a couple >of days before posting anything to the group? This will give the dust a >chance to settle, and let SA's catch up on manual group creations. >-- Actually, Mark Horton sent out the newgroup, and I waited a whole week after it went out, and then I sent out another one, and then I waited a day, and then I sent out the articles. The loss was caused by something else. I think that all of them eventually reached every site, but the high-speed path was also the low-reliability path, so the net was flooded with a vanguard subset. -- Brian Reid decwrl!glacier!reid Stanford reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA