david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Robinson) (02/26/91)
In article <%&}&J^&@rpi.edu> tale@rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >This whole thing leads to propagation of groups (not just their articles) >by insipient seepage in all hierarchies. [...] > [...] The problem is >aggravated by sites which still automatically created a new group each time >it gets one it never heard of before --- a practise the main Unix systems >ditched very long ago. Being at a site that is high on the propagation list and which talks to a number of other top 40 propigation hosts I would tend to catagorize your last statement as false. A large number of "backbone" (and I use that term very lightly) sites have the attitude that they accept and pass along any newsgroup that has traffic. There is also a group of people who feel that the entire "voting" system is a joke, see discussions about the inet distribution in nntp-managers. I think most people do not consider bogus or otherwise "unofficial" newgroup messages too much of a nuisance. The biggest complaint I have heard about them are from sites with either old news software, old newsreaders or both which have hardwired limits such as 512 or 1024 groups. The cost of a directory entry is not much for most people. People who have to deal with real costs in transporting news are effected by traffic they don't want, but that is easily solved by using an explicit sys file entry. People who want to maintain a "pure" namespace are just living in the pipe dream that they can impose any real structure on USENET and that it will make any difference in the long run. -- David Robinson david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov {decwrl,usc,ames}!elroy!david Disclaimer: No one listens to me anyway! "Once a new technology rolls over you, if you're not part of the steamroller, you're part of the road." - Stewart Brand
tale@rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (02/26/91)
In article <1991Feb25.195406.7488@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Robinson) writes: In article <%&}&J^&@rpi.edu> tale@rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > [...] The problem is aggravated by sites which still automatically > created a new group each time it gets one it never heard of before > --- a practise the main Unix systems ditched very long ago. Being at a site that is high on the propagation list and which talks to a number of other top 40 propigation hosts I would tend to catagorize your last statement as false. Also being one of those sites, as if it is relevant to either of our positions, I challenge you to show me any significant number of B News or C News sites which have hacked up the distribution to allow automatic creation of any groups which appears in Newsgroups: that it did not already know. I stand by my statement as truth until such a time. There is also a group of people who feel that the entire "voting" system is a joke, see discussions about the inet distribution in nntp-managers. I already have. I assue you, also, that I am one of the people who is very disatisfied with the whole USENET newsgroup creation procedure. Surprised? I don't think the voting system is a "joke", but it just should not be done the way it is. I also support the notion that groups which get traffic should exist --- in the current climate, however, this is an iffy proposition because sites don't seem to have any way of knowing what reasonably exists and what doesn't. This makes communication among users an iffy proposition, and I think the hodge-podge of just willy-nilly accepting anything you get articles for leads to far greater confusion and far less of a service to people. I think most people do not consider bogus or otherwise "unofficial" newgroup messages too much of a nuisance. The biggest complaint I have heard about them are from sites with either old news software, old newsreaders or both which have hardwired limits such as 512 or 1024 groups. The cost of a directory entry is not much for most people. It is hardly the directory entry I am concerned about. It is making discussion channels available to people with a reasonable guess that they will not be shooting their messages down a black hole where comparatively very few people who are interested in the topic are actually going to see it. I also have little sympathy for sites which have so little concern for really contributing to the network that they can't keep their software remotely current. People who want to maintain a "pure" namespace are just living in the pipe dream that they can impose any real structure on USENET and that it will make any difference in the long run. I think this is a load of hooey, and if you really read the messages in nntp-managers you would know that one of the people living this pipe dream is one of the very same people who is also discouraged by the guidelines. No, I don't think the namespace can be pure. It can be a lot better than just having an random group crop up from anywhere with some stupid name, splitting traffic that already has a suitable place, making it difficult for the messages to be seen by people who would really want to see them. The current climate and technology around USENET just does not support that right now. -- (setq mail '("tale@rpi.edu" "uupsi!rpi!tale" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))