chuqui@cae780.UUCP (12/24/83)
I got a message in the mail recently that bothered me a bit, and the more I
think about it, the more I want to get it into the open to see whether or
not there is a point to it and whether I replied correctly.
As a quick preface, let me say that I have a little gremlin that reads
*.test and returns a little note suggesting using to.<sitename> instead.
(no, I will NOT post this... one is more than enough..). Most replies I
have gotten have been 'Thanks, I didn't know that' types. Today, I got the
message following.
There are a couple of things that bother me. One is that I feel that there
is an implied attitude of 'If I don't approve of it, its junk'. This
translates to me as censorship. The other is one of 'If it isn't about Unix
(or equally technical material) then its junk'. I feel that the net is
improtant for many reasons beyond the technical content. At the same time,
he does seem to have a point that there is a problem with junk news,
although our definitions on junk differ.
His message is complete and unedited, with the exception of material that
might identify him. My comments back to him are interspersed. I am
interested in seeing how other people on the net feel about his comments,
and whether my feelings about things ring true to what the people on the
net feel. Any comments are welcome, because I felt that I was in a position
of defending the net on this, and I want to know if I was on the right
track...
===== message follows ==== (my comments are left flush, his indented)
Net.test is a topic that really should be obsolete, because there is
nothing that it tests that isn't tested just as fully using a local
topic (such as to.<sitename>). Because of this, ANY entry in net.test
is excess baggage. I set up the gremlin so that people who don't know
better or have forgotten are reminded that there are ways to check
things out that don't affect the net. Normally I don't reply to
comments on things my daemon ships out for me, but you made some
comments I thought needed a reply...
Well, the vulchers crawl out of the wood work once more.
I have a few complaints about your comment to me about my
few net.test messages. I agree what you say, and will
probably execute next time I want to test.
I certainly don't consider myself a vulture. I am a person who is very
interested (and involved) in trying to solve the problems of usenet and
turning it into something closer to what its potential is. As it stands,
you even agree that my message has helped you, and I have tried to make it
as non-irritating as possible. I am trying to inform people, not berate
them.
However, I sent a few harmless articles. I think it is
more of a problem when we have numerous prestigious
Universities like Purdue, University of Illinois,
Berkley, etc. that have students that post articles
to net.jokes, net.flame, etc. Those jerks are totally
posting unnecessary articles to the net AND WASTING MY
FEDERAL AND STATE TAX DOLLARS! Most of those dummys
are also getting grants which WASTE MY SOCIAL SECURITY
DOLLARS! Get my drift!
I don't consider net.test articles harmless. They cost everyone money, and
if EVERYONE sent a few 'harmless' articles the net would choke on itself.
As far as topics such as net.jokes and net.flame, while agree that they do
not serve a purpose as a technical resource on the net, there are other
reasons for having them around. First, they create interest in the net. If
the only material on the net was technical, there would be many fewer
readers, and much of the technical material on the net would also be lost.
Also, these non-technical topics allow readers to explore new areas of
interest and learn more about things other than computers. One of the
biggest problems in computers today are people who have no interest except
computers, and anything that helps round these people out and get them
interested in life has my full support. You also assume that most of the
'garbage' comes from school sites. Not so. My records show that about 50%
of the net traffic is from commercial sites that pay their own way on the
net. Also remember that a lot of the technical material you are on the net
for comes from those schools. Wasting your Social Security? I didn't know
that SSA was funding Unix related computer research, so how can it be
wasting those dollars?
Now, for a few of my helpless articles that I sent, I
suggest that for every article that you read that is
stupid, why don't you spend some time writing the real
jerks on netnews. Furthermore, I am a high tech person
that does significant software and hardware development during the
year and I DON'T HAVE AND DON'T EVEN WANT TO READ "net.test",
"net.kids", "net.jokes", etc.
When I find a real jerk on the net, I DO write them. It depends on your
definition of jerk. I gather that your definition of a jerk is anyone who
doesn't share your interests (and only your interests) in the use of the
net. That's your perogative, but I feel that is a very narrow view. The net
has MANY uses for many people. You also seem to assume that these 'jerks'
are NOT High tech people. Wrong. Most of them are very dedicated
professionals who also happen to realize that there is more to life than
computers. A VERY smart realization. You seem to have taken the proper
alternative by not reading those things you aren't interested in. The wrong
way is to try to force people with other interested to not read things you
aren't interested in as well.
The net has truly gotten out of hand, and about 98% of it
is trash. For system developers like me, the other 2% is
very valuable.
I think your percentages are a little off, but I tend to agree with you.
There is a problem on the net, and some of us are working to improve things
(others simply sit back and complain, which doesn't really help). If what
you are looking for is only the technical material, then a lot of usenet is
waste material, but when you consider factors such as employee morale and
using the net as an employment perk (I personally won't work for someone
who doesn't support the net, and I know many who feel similarly) then even
the problem areas are turned into assets.
With respect to my few articles, put on that thinking cap
and think of the thousands and thousands of articles that
are purely meaningless and junk. I am sure that your
telephone bill is much more significant than a few of
my development test articles.
Also, how much time did it really take to transmit this
article at 1200 baud. If it took more than 2 seconds, I
will be shocked. At 300, I will give you 6 seconds.
I cut off the jokes into my system since it is a total
waste and digs into the pocket for the telephone bill.
And also, God will punish those who do not adhere to humanly
practices. This world is tarnished with junk and we as
humans will soon pay. A legitimate few test messages did
no harm, but think of all the wasted time people spend on
the trash of USENET. THOSE people are the ones tarnishing
the beauty of USENET and should be punished!
God? No matter what God we believe in (and I think our Gods are
significantly different people) I think He has much better things to do
that punish people who post to net.jokes. Like I say, if you don't want
net.jokes in your computer, thats your choice, but I think you are taking
the wrong attitude if you try to force that thinking on other people,
because they have significantly different views on what is good and bad. I
don't think usenet is tarnished, its just been growing faster than we were
ready for.alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (12/24/83)
If you're worried about the cost of sending things on net.test, why aren't you worried about the cost of sending your little comment back?
north@down.UUCP (north) (12/24/83)
What's a high tech person? How can I recognize one if I see one? I'm concerned. el norte
phil@amd70.UUCP (12/24/83)
Chuck raises some interesting points. I like my nodes to be able to
feed others so if I were feeding a site which rejected newsgroups, I'd
probably give their slot to the next new site which came along.
I wonder if it's time to consider having two logical nets, a technical
and a non-technical net. A technical subjects only network would be
easier to justify at sites whose management might be offended by net.jokes.
--
Phil Ngai (408) 988-7777 {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd70!philsmb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (12/25/83)
Having been involved in trying to track down a net problem (articles were vanishing down a black hole), I can categorically state that there is a need for net.test. We (unc!bch, unc!bts, and myself) were trying to determine why net.* articles from UNC weren't getting very far. Using 'to.*' doesn't help. Nor, it turns out, did using net.test, since many sites weren't propogating it. In the end, we resorted to net.misc for a test message -- not out of ignorance, not out of malice, but simply because that was the only way we had to duplicate the problem.
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (12/25/83)
Zzzzzzzz... Snore! More electronic jousting. So what's new? Why can't people realize that it takes very little (such as that daemon reader of 'net.test') to get someone's hackles up when it's sent electronically? This guy's response should be taken as nothing more than a defensive, reflex flame elicited by your daemon's "friendly suggestion." I think arguments along the line of "If everyone posted to 'net.test', then the net would drown in its own traffic" are pretty weak. Let's face it-- the traffic 'net.test' generates just isn't a problem. It isn't that large, notwithstanding this discussion, and if ANYTHING should be done (not that I think so) the proper action to take would be to remove the group rather than dunning those netters who innocently take advantage of it. What a tempest in a teapot! -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (12/26/83)
This discussion comes up every once in a while. The conclusion is
generally the following:
(1) net.test is there because people sometimes have a legitimate need
to post to net.something as a test. If we nuked net.test, people
would start posting their test messages to net.general. (This
has happened before.) net.test gives people a place to post test
messages to so that humans (who are annoyed at reading them) can
unsubscribe.
(2) The extra traffic generated by net.test currently is insignificant.
I suspect that there has been more traffic flaming one way or
another about the subject than there has been making up test
messages. Even if you cut out all test messages, you would not
reduce the phone bills by any measurable amount.
(3) Of the messages posted to net.test currently, most of them probably
could have been posted to a smaller group, like "test" or "to.foo"
or "cb.test". People do misuse net.test. In fact, the current
policy is that all messages to net.test are supposed to have a body
explaining why a smaller newsgroup was not used. Obviously some
people on the net cannot read.
(4) There are now apparently two places on the net that send automatic
mail to people who post to net.test. This is plenty - assuming the
messages are benign (and it sounds like they both are) and try to
be helpful rather than berating, this is a useful service which
reminds people of the rules and points out a better way.
Mark Hortonmjs@rabbit.UUCP (M. J. Shannon, Jr.) (12/26/83)
From the traffic generated on this subject already, I'd say a bunch of
folks in netland need to grow up. Yes, there is a NEED for net.test,
however, many people don't realize that someone (vax135 or decvax) gets
to pay for a transatlantic call the the UK to forward these messages.
I think there's also a link to Australia, which isn't cheap, either.
How many other sites are willing to foot that kind of bill for
net.jokes, net.test, and a whole raft of other `non-technical'
newsgroups? Or for that matter, how about those folks running Lauren's
news/mail package for micros? The point Chuck was trying to make is
that some people have ABUSED one group in particular, namely net.test.
Many employers have withdrawn partially or completely from the net
because of these bills, and truly useless articles (not like the
articles Steve Bellovin described) cost ALL netnews sponsors a great
deal of money, and force the advocates of netnews to go to extreme
lengths to persuade their management that it is nonetheless viable (and
valuable) to continue to participate in the net. Now the net.tester
(sorry, his name scrolled of my screen) claims that his message took
only 1 second to transmit (at 1200 baud). Anyone who is familiar with
phone company billing is aware that a 1 second call costs as much as a
1- or even 3- minute call. That means that if the net.test article was
the only one transmitted at that time, at least 1500 more and possibly
4500 more characters could have been transferred `for free' during that
call. If that site batches news, then the `wasted' bandwidth is
reduced to whatever fraction of a minute is left at the end of the
conversation. I strongly believe that Chuck's response was absolutely
correct, and as long as his daemon's message was polite and informative,
should have resulted in the same sorts of `Thank you, I didn't know.'
messages he's received from others. Please remember, ANY ABUSE
JEOPARDIZES THE ENTIRE NET, not just your site.
Please: abuse to rabbit!mjs (if you really feel that you have to);
constructive notes to net.news.adm. Thanks.
--
Marty Shannon
UUCP: {alice,rabbit,research}!mjs
Phone: 201-582-3199hlh@linus.UUCP (Henry L. Hall) (12/27/83)
Remeber "You can take the net out of the humour but you can't necessarily take the humour out of the net" :-)
swatt@ittvax.UUCP (Alan S. Watt) (12/27/83)
Regarding purported abuse of "net.test" newsgroup:
Actually, one can argue that the very nature of 'net.test' requires
automatic answer daemons -- How can you find out where the message is
getting if all human readers have un-subscribed to net.test.
We already have the various control messages to send data back to UUCP
and USENET map makers, why not an 'echo' control message whose only
function is to acknowledge receipt of the test message, perhaps including
the body of the original message to track down line-eating gremlins?
One could make this fairly cheap (in terms of total propagation) by
having a maximum path count (default of 1) which would only acknowledge
the message if the "From" path length were less or equal to the
specified maximum. Thus if you thought there were a problem getting
news out past your most immediate neighbor, you could send an 'echo'
control message out with a path maximum of 2. Systems at path length
== 1 would acknowledge and forward; systems at path length == 2 would
acknowledge and drop the message.
(One could also argue that this kind of attenuation effect
should apply to all USENET articles, but that's a topic for
another article).
People would be encouraged not to specify a path-maximum of 99, or
something absurdly large, simply because more precise techniques for
locating faults would be available; if news admin on site A finds
that everything gets out to length 3 correctly except for stuff going
via site B, he can simply request news admin at site B to run tests
centered there instead of increasing the path-maximum.
People with a legitimate need to test article transmission would be
assisted by automated support; everyone could un-subscribe to 'net.test'
without hindering people tracking down problems (in fact, there would
be no need to actually insert the article in the local news storage);
and no one would need to send letters, polite or otherwise, to people
who might or might not be abusing this particular newsgroup.
- Alan S. ("Every problem contains the seeds of its own solution") Wattber@gummo.UUCP (12/28/83)
#R:cae780:-25200:gummo:46600001:000:170 gummo!ber Dec 25 01:56:00 1983 Worried about 'high tech' persons? As well you ought to. They endanger all of us in their hazardous operation of tech machinery. Avoid persons who wear contact lenses.
chuqui@cae780.UUCP (12/29/83)
Having been involved in trying to track down a net problem
(articles were vanishing down a black hole), I can categorically
state that there is a need for net.test. We (unc!bch, unc!bts, and
myself) were trying to determine why net.* articles from UNC
weren't getting very far. Using 'to.*' doesn't help. Nor, it
turns out, did using net.test, since many sites weren't propogating
it. In the end, we resorted to net.misc for a test message -- not
out of ignorance, not out of malice, but simply because that was
the only way we had to duplicate the problem.
This is the very reason why I have been sending out my messages. There are
some cases where a problem in the net needs to be tracked down, and that is
why net.test exists. Unfortunately, too many sites use it without thinking,
which causes other sites to stop forwarding it, which means that it isn't
useful for net testing. In MOST cases, passing messages back and forth to
your neighbors is all you need, and all you should do.
As far as the cost of my mail replies, I am sending a single message to a
person with some information he may not have known or remembered. If that
message keeps that person from shipping out a net.test message in the
future, the overall amount of traffic is reduced. The mail I have been
getting back has shown me that there are a large number of people who
hadn't known about alternatives to net.test (and thanked me for cluing them
in), so at this point I think its worth it...jeff@heurikon.UUCP (12/30/83)
Couldn't people simply post some article to a non-test group
(like this, for example) to do "disguised" tests?
Get rid of net.test and you'll probably see more trivia
in misc, general or (heavens!) flame.
--
Jeffrey Mattox, Heurikon Corp, Madison, WI
{harpo, hao, philabs}!seismo!uwvax!heurikon!jeff
(That path is correct, desipte what the headers might show.)jack@hp-dcde.UUCP (12/31/83)
#R:cae780:-25200:hp-dcde:29500001:000:459 hp-dcde!jack Dec 28 17:27:00 1983 I'm a great fan of the regional test method. For example, we have hp.test for our Hewlett-Packard subnetwork, and fsd.test for those people here at the HP's FSD plant. It is rarely necessary to post to net.test with these around. Use *.test for your regional/corporate subnetworks! There should be bell.test, ba.test, chi.test, tx.test, co.test, nj.test, etc. -Jack Applin.test Hewlett-Packard FSD (hplabs!hp-dcd!jack)