scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (01/31/88)
As of a few days ago, I am running a public mailing list for the purpose of
sending articles from the unix-pc News network to people who cannot get the
unix-pc groups. Send mail to me if you wish to be included on this list.
As with any mailing list, if the readership gets high enough, Something
Will Have To Be Done. In the case of this list, the specific proposal is
to gateway the unix-pc groups into comp.sys.att. If you're interested in
seeing this done, join the list; help me get the readership count high
enough.
\scott
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET
(408) 245-9461 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scottkathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (01/31/88)
In article <403@zorch.UU.NET> scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: >As of a few days ago, I am running a public mailing list for the purpose of >sending articles from the unix-pc News network to people who cannot get the >unix-pc groups. Send mail to me if you wish to be included on this list. > >As with any mailing list, if the readership gets high enough, Something >Will Have To Be Done. In the case of this list, the specific proposal is >to gateway the unix-pc groups into comp.sys.att. If you're interested in >seeing this done, join the list; help me get the readership count high >enough. Actually - sorry and no offense intended - this strikes me as funny ... because part of the original networking of the unix-pc groups included sending news as mail to people who couldn't otherwise get directly connected ... In other words, that's always been a possibility. It's easy enough to do - an entry in a sys file. I would also be happy to send the groups as mail - but only in the interest of getting the information out to people who need it, NOT in the interest of adding numbers to a mailing list. Sending the groups as mail, as I see it, takes care of the Something Having to Be Done because, if the purpose is to get the information to people, it will have been gotten to people. What further purpose does "gatewaying" (that nasty nonverb again) the groups into comp.sys.att serve? And I have yet to understand what gatewaying (...) does that cross-posting doesn't. Someone, please explain that to me. In public - maybe I'm not the only one who doesn't understand it. Kathy Vincent ------> {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy ------> {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy ------> { favourite AT&T gateway }!wruxe!unix
richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) (02/01/88)
> And I have yet to understand what gatewaying (...) does that cross-posting > doesn't. Someone, please explain that to me. In public - maybe I'm not > the only one who doesn't understand it. Gatewaying would be automatic. Not something that everyone would have to remember to do every time they post. Cross-posting would be a special requirement of these groups shared by no others. The special cross-posting requirement would have to be continually re-announced so that newcomers wouldn't miss out. Why require special handling from everyone involved rather than making things automatic? No one is suggesting that the unix-pc groups be abolished, just that they be better connected. In a clean, convenient, proven way. -- Richard Foulk ...{vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!richard Honolulu, Hawaii
scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (02/01/88)
In article <1061@bakerst.UUCP> kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) writes: >sending news as mail to people who couldn't otherwise get directly >connected ... In other words, that's always been a possibility. Of course it has been possible. I'm doing it, aren't I? *You* never mentioned, even though you were obviously aware of it. >What further purpose does "gatewaying" (that nasty nonverb again) >the groups into comp.sys.att serve? *If* the readership is high enough, it is less costly to the transport links (read "the Usenet backbone") to send news than to send a mailing list. >And I have yet to understand what gatewaying (...) does that cross-posting >doesn't. Someone, please explain that to me. In public - maybe I'm not >the only one who doesn't understand it. 1) A gateway does not require all sites that generate material receive boths groups. Unless there's something in the News software that I'm not familiar with, it's not possible to cross-post into a group that your site does not receive. That applies to unix-pc-only sites as well as Usenet-only sites. 2) A gateway is *automatic*. It puts no requirements on posters to make intelligent choices. And it has been shown time and again through the experience of the Usenet that posters by and large *don't* make intelligent choices; hence, the large numbers of article followups that appear in inappropriate groups because the topic changed but the Newsgroups line didn't. >Kathy Vincent ------> {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy > ------> {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy > ------> { favourite AT&T gateway }!wruxe!unix -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET (408) 245-9461 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (02/02/88)
In article <3834@islenet.UUCP> richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes: >No one is suggesting that the unix-pc groups be abolished, just that >they be better connected. In a clean, convenient, proven way. Please don't imply that there is something unclean, or unproven about the way the unix-pc newsgroups are connected. The unix-pc newsgroups has a calm, no-flames flavor that mainstream Usenet does not have. (Else all the backbones would be carrying them:-) -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (02/02/88)
In article <406@zorch.UU.NET> scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: >In article <1061@bakerst.UUCP> kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) writes: >>sending news as mail to people who couldn't otherwise get directly >>connected ... In other words, that's always been a possibility. > >Of course it has been possible. I'm doing it, aren't I? *You* never >mentioned, even though you were obviously aware of it. Now wait - let's keep this civil. I may not have mentioned it - lately - in public - I don't routinely tell and retell everything I know on the public net, after all. But I believe the information is included in the standard usenet documentation. I realize not everyone reads all the standard usenet documentation. Mostly, I spend my time trying to arrange direct feeds, not mail routes, for people who say they'd like to get the unix-pc.* groups. I have suggested the mail method - and used it myself - when a direct feed was not available, which hasn't been very often. >2) A gateway is *automatic*. It puts no requirements on posters to make >intelligent choices. And it has been shown time and again through the >experience of the Usenet that posters by and large *don't* make intelligent >choices; Well, now that you've insulted *everyone* indiscriminately ... :-) Thanks for the other info about gatewaying though - you and Arnold at skeeve, who email'd me a very nice and clear elaboration. I believe you were also the first to point out the problems of cross-posting - thanks for that, too - and yes, I can see the problem - altho I'll add that since there are a lot of people who carry both groups, they may still very well reach more UNIX pc owners than one group does by itself. So let me ask you another question - just out of curiosity: Are you also planning to gateway UNIX pc articles back from comp.sys.att to the unix-pc net? For the benefit of the people who get the unix-pc groups don't get comp.sys.att and have no access to Usenet at large? Including, e.g., responses to unix-pc.* postings that you're gatewaying into comp.sys.att? Wasn't it a 3B2 owner who started this???! Kathy Vincent ------> {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy ------> {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (02/02/88)
Scott,
What you are doing for the unix-pc community is terrific! We all
appreciate it, even though we have not often said so publicly.
--
Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334
Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (02/03/88)
In article <1066@bakerst.UUCP> kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) writes: >In article <406@zorch.UU.NET> scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: >Now wait - let's keep this civil. My apologies. I over-reacted. >Mostly, I spend my time trying to arrange direct feeds, not mail routes, >for people who say they'd like to get the unix-pc.* groups. I have >suggested the mail method - and used it myself - when a direct feed >was not available, which hasn't been very often. Direct feeds are a good idea, when they can be used. Problems with the above that I can think of: a significant number of Unix-PC owners don't carry news on their system - what news they do read is at work, where they don't administers the system and no-one has the time to set them up; feeds may only be available long-distance, and the cost (even if small) is prohibitive. Now, I'm certainly not going to fault a Unix-PC owner for *not* running News; it is definitely a hairy piece of software, even 'just' to install. >>2) A gateway is *automatic*. It puts no requirements on posters to make >>intelligent choices. And it has been shown time and again through the >>experience of the Usenet that posters by and large *don't* make intelligent >>choices; > >Well, now that you've insulted *everyone* indiscriminately ... :-) If the shoe fits... After I wrote the above, I *made* *sure* that I went back and examined my outgoing header. Despite all of the safeguards and checks built into Pnews (I don't know about postnews) people still post indiscriminately; just observe the number of people saying 'get that discussion out of here!' >So let me ask you another question - just out of curiosity: Are you >also planning to gateway UNIX pc articles back from comp.sys.att to the >unix-pc net? If I don't get broiled alive for my temerity in so suggesting, yes, I would like to. It's a rather more complex problem than just the original gateway proposal: comp.sys.att is a superset of unix-pc, and I don't know if all of the 3B1/7300 owners would much appreciate articles about 6300/6300+/3BN (N>1) appearing out of the blue. >Including, e.g., responses to unix-pc.* postings that you're gatewaying >into comp.sys.att? If I can manage a reasonable gateway back into unix-pc, responses should tend to come automatically. The problem is one of discrimination: how does the gateway tell? My best answer so far is to poke through the headers looking for key words, such as '3B1', '7300', 'Unix-PC', etc. This can become very resource-intensive, though, and I'm open to better suggestions. >Wasn't it a 3B2 owner who started this???! 'Splitting comp.sys.att', I think was the original article title... >Kathy Vincent ------> {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy > ------> {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy \scott -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET (408) 245-9461 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott