awpaeth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Alan Wm Paeth) (12/14/88)
Some observations on large postings and the SAO:
(1) the data totals 1.46Meg in UUCP form, AND NOT 3Meg. To achieve this
small size I designed and included a custom (en/de)coder in Part01.
(2) I chose to release the data to the moderator given the heavy demand at
both private and professional sites for this proven scientific dataset.
(3) I considered "dribbling" the data out personally, eg weekly postings of the
stars currently overhead at midnight, for one year. Lacking archives, it
was decided that this would potentially generate e-mail traffic of the "do
you have posting X?" type that might exceed the traffic of a net posting.
Ironically, a dribble scheme would now be many months underway.
(4) Ideas toward distribution were solicited from sci.astro (mid year); they
suggested the net posting. Rich and I felt that 48 parts was on the large
side; but again, semi-functional 20-part Postscript interpreters and even
60-part window managers of limited portability are not unknown. Rich viewed
the SAO as an interesting "test case" in terms of large postings (as do I).
(5) The posting was delayed many months until I suggested that interested
parties on sci.astro contact Rich directly, threby indicating demand.
Presumably the response was overwhelming enough to tip the scales.
In the end, it seems that the recent number of positive comments "re: SAO"
closely balance out the negative ones -- from this I infer that the posting
limit for comp.sources.unix seems to be between one and two meg or at about
the 35-60 part range, irrespective of content.
/Alan Paeth
Computer Graphics Laboratory
University of Waterloorick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (12/14/88)
In article <7298@watcgl.waterloo.edu> awpaeth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Alan Wm Paeth) writes: >(2) I chose to release the data to the moderator given the heavy demand at > both private and professional sites for this proven scientific dataset. Yes, it is very important to get these 'large' postings into the archive sites, as I've found out. Otherwise, you are forever mailing them to people, creating much more net-load. Its too bad there is no convenient method to do this other than net-wide posting. I didn't need the data, but I accept the need and the mechanism choosen. -- Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor|uunet!pcrat!dry2 PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:|for Dhrystone 2 uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/. |submission forms. jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP} 12013898963 "" \d\r\d ogin: jetuucp
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (12/15/88)
In article <7298@watcgl.waterloo.edu> awpaeth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Alan Wm Paeth) writes: [explanation of why this big posting appeared on comp.sources.unix] I think if this explanation had been given in part 0 of the posting, there would have been fewer flames. People are fairly reasonable if you explain why something is being done. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (12/15/88)
In <5148@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >In article <7298@watcgl.waterloo.edu> awpaeth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Alan Wm >Paeth) writes: >[explanation of why this big posting appeared on comp.sources.unix] > >I think if this explanation had been given in part 0 of the posting, >there would have been fewer flames. People are fairly reasonable if >you explain why something is being done. Bottom line: It was posted because I thought it would be of enough value. Believe me, I know the propogation and cost of distribution what I approve -- all it takes is one failed gateway and I get gazillions of copies of everything... :-) Alan's article made the SAO posting sound like a well-reasoned experiment, with definite criteria to determine future behavior. Nahh, it was just a whim. As I recall I said somethink like "Well, it's a little large, let's see what happens." I think I'm gonna be a little more gun-shy about large postings. Only problem is that I've already committed to a 60-parter... The discussion here (and in my mailbox) has been very light. In fact, the distribution has 49 parts, and I've seen less than 49 articles about it -- and that almost counts the private email I've gotten. Surely this is some kind of record for Usenet. Netters who I've come in contact for comp.sources.unix have been almost 100% reasonable. Certainly much more than I should expect, given the the abuses that have gone on. But one request: if you'd like to know my opinion on something, please ask me directly -- I tend to get turned off by postings of the form "I feel that blah blah blah. Rich?" -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E. Wilcoxon) (12/15/88)
It is interesting that a large source (22 parts) is presently appearing
in comp.mail.elm without much complaint, other than my muttering as I
manually save each chunk. I'll mutter more as I add Archive-Name fields.
I much prefer to have clean data or source in the "sources" groups,
where I can easily weed out what is not of interest, and where it will
probably be saved in other archive sites. Useful data or source in
discussion groups (often in comp.arch and comp.graphics) are easily lost.
--
Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco
Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco
I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch.allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (12/22/88)
As quoted from <642@pcrat.UUCP> by rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson): +--------------- | In article <7298@watcgl.waterloo.edu> awpaeth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Alan Wm Paeth) writes: | >(2) I chose to release the data to the moderator given the heavy demand at | > both private and professional sites for this proven scientific dataset. | | Yes, it is very important to get these 'large' postings into the archive | sites, as I've found out. Otherwise, you are forever mailing them to people, | creating much more net-load. +--------------- How about a new alias, "xxx-archive", for every moderated sources group. The moderator can attach headers as appropriate and mail the article to the archive site(s); or perhaps use a special distribution "arch" to send the posting. The header information would be something like: Posting-number: Volume 2, Archive 1 Subject: v02ar01: blah, blah, blah... This would get stuff into the archives properly and wouldn't disrupt either the newsgroup or the numbering scheme (which is useful for identifying missing postings). Any other moderator-types listening? ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, comp.sources.misc moderator and one admin of ncoast PA UN*X uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu comp.sources.misc is moving off ncoast -- please do NOT send submissions direct Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone>.
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (12/23/88)
=How about a new alias, "xxx-archive", for every moderated sources group. The =moderator can attach headers as appropriate and mail the article to the =archive site(s); or perhaps use a special distribution "arch" to send the =posting. I believe that this is a truly horrible idea. Since my last posting on this thread I've heard from several news admins who were glad SAO was posted. Most said "I'm not gonna use it, but I sure am glad several copies aren't being mailed through my site." For large-scale dissemination of bytes, it is hard to get a more efficient mechanism than Usenet. Happy holidays. /r$ -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.