stephen@dcl-cs.UUCP (Stephen J. Muir) (09/02/85)
I think there should be some way to limit the size of news articles, especially those in net.sources*. These newsgroups have had *very* large articles even though they come in several parts. I would rather see many small parts to a set of articles than a few very big parts. -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!stephen DARPA: stephen%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster, JANET: stephen@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing, Phone: +44 524 65201 Ext. 4599 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK. Project:Alvey ECLIPSE Distribution | LA1 4YR
keld@diku.UUCP (Keld J|rn Simonsen) (09/03/85)
I do not hate long articles, especially not in net.sources. In rn and the like (I use nn - developed by diku!storm) you get one line of info per article and this is what I *have* to read - this is what takes time. More small articles mean more time spent, unless you make a special 'parts' collection in the headlines. People should of cause express themself as precisely and short as possible.
mojo@kepler.UUCP (Morris Jones) (09/03/85)
stephen@dcl-cs.UUCP (Stephen J. Muir) writes: >I think there should be some way to limit the size of news articles, especially >those in net.sources*. These newsgroups have had *very* large articles even >though they come in several parts. I would rather see many small parts to a >set of articles than a few very big parts. I disagree. The more pieces there are to a posting, the more likely the chance of losing one or more along the path, therefore the more requests for repostings, therefore extra unnecessary overhead on the net. I didn't see you give any reasons for disliking the large articles. -- Mojo ... Morris Jones, MicroPro Product Development {dual,ptsfa,hplabs}!well!micropro!kepler!mojo
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/04/85)
[note: future followups will show up only in net.news.adm...] In article <425@dcl-cs.UUCP> stephen@dcl-cs.UUCP (Stephen J. Muir) writes: >I think there should be some way to limit the size of news articles, especially >those in net.sources*. These newsgroups have had *very* large articles even >though they come in several parts. I would rather see many small parts to a >set of articles than a few very big parts. I looked at this a couple of months ago. Technically, it isn't possible unless the restrictions are installed at the creation of the network (many of the new network systems I've seen published have this restriction) but there is no way to install it after the fact unless you have control over the entire network, which we don't. If you only install it in some locations, you end up creating a LOT of pain and anguish, and likely a number of new and interesting black holes (where messages go away silently, never to be seen again) as well. Philosophically, I have nothing against long articles that are put together well. Especially in net.sources, since sources tend to be rather long (especially if they are non-trivial and/or well documented, both of which the stuff in net.sources ought to be...). In fact, there has been a suggestion (semi-seriously) to reject articles that are shorter than a certain length in an attempt to get rid of some of the garbage that is there but belongs in other groups. It, unfortunately, seems to have the same technological problems... I'd rather see us looking for answers to serious problems: misplaced articles, articles with excessive quoting, mega-multi silly responses to the same article, some way to keep topics from resurrecting every few months (net.unix-wizards is AGAIN discussing kernel based pagers, and net.tv is probably due for the semi-annual "What city is Hill Street Blues really" about fiasco...) and ways to deal with the general excessive volume and reader overload going on with the net. It is easy to fix problems that don't solve anything, its not so easy to even define the difficult problems... Personally, I have more or less decided that its time to quick mucking with USENET and use the examples of what doesn't work here to build something that will. In my copious free time... *sigh* chuq [editorial reminder: some sites DO have size restrictions on uucp traffic, some on mail, some on mail and news. some limit things to 100K, some to 64K, and I've run into sites that get upset at 50K. If you're putting together a large distribution or set of sources to be distributed or mailed somewhere, it is safest to put it in batches of 40K or less] -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui Son, you're mixing ponderables again
bill@persci.UUCP (09/06/85)
In article <1160@diku.UUCP> keld@diku.UUCP (Keld J|rn Simonsen) writes: >I do not hate long articles, especially not in net.sources. >In rn and the like [...] >you get one line of info per article and this is what I *have* to >read - this is what takes time. [...] Net.sources can have long articles. As for the rest, I often read them over a 300 baud line, excluding articles > 1 page. Long textual articles can be agonizing! -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber) (09/09/85)
Large articles in net.sources is better than having MORE of the
"Please send me part X of so-and-so.c that was in net.sources as
we seemed to have missed receiving that part" messages, don't you
think?
--
Stan uucp:{ihnp4!shell,rice}!neuro1!sob Opinions expressed
Olan ARPA:sob@rice.arpa here are ONLY mine &
Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)660-9262 noone else's.