CHAA006%UK.AC.RHBNC.VAXA@AC.UK (07/01/86)
Contrary to Rudy Nedved's suggestion, I cannot commend too highly the distribution of program sources through the INFO-VAX mailbox (e.g. FILE, VERB, DELIVER ?). For those of us in the U.K. who operate incompatible file transfer protocols, such distributions are frequently the ONLY way that we can receive such useful stuff. Please carry on. Philip Taylor (RHBNC; Univ. of London) <CHAA006%RHBNC.VAXB@AC.UK> (via EARN)
Rudy.Nedved@A.CS.CMU.EDU (07/01/86)
A seperate mailing list can be set up called inf-vax-sources or something for a work around. USENET has mod.sources for this reason. -Rudy
Wahl.ES@XEROX.COM (07/02/86)
If we're taking a vote, I vote to ban distributions to INFO-VAX of programs. It seems to me that donors of such programs could post info on them and ofter to mail them to THOSE PEOPLE WHO WANT THEM. As it is, most of the INFO-VAX postings are not of interest to me, and therefore mailbox-clutter (but it's more than worth the time going through them for the few things that do interest me) so I'd really prefer to spare my disk, the necessity of dealing with these long programs. In fact, has anyone ever considered breaking INFO-VAX up into different subjects: INFO-VMS, INFOVAX-UNIX, INFO-VAX-HARDWARE and such? (And maybe a separate PLEASE-ADD-ME-TO-A-MAILING-LIST) --Lisa
cetron%utah-cbd@UTAH-CS.ARPA.UUCP (07/03/86)
And USENET has such terrible drivel as net.rumors - for HIGH volume, and NO content.....I personally don't care how high the volume is as long as the information content is high. And I consider program sources as very high in technical information content - even if I have no use for that particular program...... To all those willing to share their programs, I say keep it up.... (why do i have to raise the volume of mail for this type of letter.. there is no content here....maybe post it to info-vax.blatther) -ed cetron%utah-cbd@utah-cs.arpa
Rudy.Nedved@A.CS.CMU.EDU.UUCP (07/03/86)
There is some interesting confusion out there in the mail land. Clearly some people are assuming things that are just not true or are impractical or miss the point. Suggestions: - Tailor the USENET configuration information to prune the list. Alas CMU is not primarily a USENET site. Most mail and bboard is thru the mail and not thru netnews software. - This has been going on for sometime now. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone complains so I don't complain unless it seems that the things seem too quiet. Oh yea, I have been on the ARPANET at least 8 years and on the info-vax mailing list for at least 4. - Only files smaller then size X should be sent....people are not programs....you can't expect them to behave like programs. It is a hard enough trick to get people to send list additions to <listname>-request@host. - Mail is the only way to get sources in broken-net-land. Hey why should everyone suffer because of your wedged net? What is wrong with a seperate mailing list or handling it by request? The quiet or non-existant response confirms my belief they are just yelling because I propose a change. The info-vax list and associated netnews groups covers are large audience and when audiences are that large maintaing the status quo is a tendency. But just like there are sites that can only get programs via mail there are sites that large pieces of mail to many individual causes service slow down for mail and takes up a good chunk of disk space. Why do I care? I maintain a good number of these systems's mail systems... Rudy Nedved Facilities Staff Computer Science/Robotics Carnegie Mellon University