del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) (08/01/90)
In article <3275.26b54aab@mccall.com> tp@mccall.com writes: >In article <Jul.30.17.57.18.1990.9079@turbo.bio.net>, lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >> I claim that I will be wrong fewer times than the users passing mail >> through me. In addition I'll be respecting the wishes of those who >> use the map data to control just how much volume will pass through >> their sites. >> >> Given the following path: >> >> bionet!uwm.edu!wuarchive!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!mccall!tp > >Are there still news systems that use the Path: line for replies? That is >the only way someone could generate the above garbage. My From: address is >tp@mccall.com, and any mail to that address will generate an optimal path >according to pathalias. Any news system that does that is broken (always >was). Lean on the sender to fix it. Few people actually generate paths by >hand all the way to the destination. Other than broken news systems, who's >paths are you trying to fix? When building rn, if you #define INTERNET, when replying to an article, rn uses %t for the To: address. If you do not #define INTERNET, rn uses %T for the To: address. Quoting from the man page: %t "To:" line derived from the "From:" and "Reply-To:" lines of the current article. This always returns an Internet format address. %T "To:" line derived from the "Path:" line of the current article to produce a uucp path. If something better was implemented for the non-Internet case, it might cut down on the number of monstrous paths seen in mail addresses. -- Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor Internet: del@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028 Phone: (407) 729-5205 Melbourne, FL 32901
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (08/01/90)
While netnews is commonly thought of as "usenet software," by now you should be aware that it is often used in other ways: for example, to distribute "alternative" hierarchies in parallel with the seven sisters. Now imagine, if you will, an organization with an isolated, internal network, that likes the functionality and available user interfaces we enjoy, and wants to deploy it for their own use. It may make sense for them to choose the non- INTERNET configuration. What the documentation should clearly state for sites that are using netnews for ->usenet<- traffic, that INTERNET should ALWAYS be #defined (even for sites not "on" the Internet, and even for sites not running pathalias). Path: lines DO NOT WORK FOR REPLY. Maybe for intra-Eunet traffic, but not in general. It doesn't make sense in North America. The "INTERNET" conditional may be misnamed, but it's a bit late to change it. -=EPS=-
del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) (08/01/90)
In article <818@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >While netnews is commonly thought of as "usenet software," by now >you should be aware that it is often used in other ways: for >example, to distribute "alternative" hierarchies in parallel with >the seven sisters. Now imagine, if you will, an organization >with an isolated, internal network, that likes the functionality >and available user interfaces we enjoy, and wants to deploy it >for their own use. It may make sense for them to choose the non- >INTERNET configuration. But it just as likely that the INTERNET configuration is the right choice in this situation. >What the documentation should clearly state for sites that are >using netnews for ->usenet<- traffic, that INTERNET should ALWAYS >be #defined (even for sites not "on" the Internet, and even for >sites not running pathalias). Path: lines DO NOT WORK FOR REPLY. >Maybe for intra-Eunet traffic, but not in general. It doesn't >make sense in North America. The "INTERNET" conditional may be >misnamed, but it's a bit late to change it. > Its never too late to change. If we do nothing, we are stuck with our present problems. If we fix the software now, people will start to use it and the problem of mail being sent along Path: lines will sloowly fade away. I propose having three choices for the configuration: REPLY_RFC822 - Replies to the contents of From: or Reply-To: REPLY_PATH - Replies to the contents of Path: - not recommended REPLY_RFC976 - replys to a uucp bang path (for mailers that don't understand @) constructed by [fill in the blank] -- Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor Internet: del@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028 Phone: (407) 729-5205 Melbourne, FL 32901
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/01/90)
In article <818@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >... Path: lines DO NOT WORK FOR REPLY. >Maybe for intra-Eunet traffic, but not in general. It doesn't >make sense in North America... On the contrary, often it does. Not if an alternative is available, of course, but the odds are still better than even that a Path line *will* work as a reply address. Yes, in North America. I speak as someone whose mailer didn't understand @ addresses until quite recently. -- The 486 is to a modern CPU as a Jules | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Verne reprint is to a modern SF novel. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
mills@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gary Mills) (08/02/90)
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >What the documentation should clearly state for sites that are >using netnews for ->usenet<- traffic, that INTERNET should ALWAYS >be #defined (even for sites not "on" the Internet, and even for >sites not running pathalias). Path: lines DO NOT WORK FOR REPLY. One way to fix this would be to put a bogus user name as the last component of the Path: for newly posted articles. Come to think of it, articles posted here via nntp all have `news' as the user name! That's not much use for replies. -- -Gary Mills- -University of Manitoba- -Winnipeg-
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (08/02/90)
In article <1990Aug1.230858.3264@iwarp.intel.com> merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) writes:
.... Or better yet, if I remember correctly, doesn't the
RFC allow *any* separator character? So you could put "yourhost*" in
the path or even "yourhost!!", and the chances of that getting kicked
back one or two hops after the initial sender (because of rabid
rerouters :-) are much higher).
The RFC (1036) sez
This line shows the path the message took to reach the current
system. When a system forwards the message, it should add its own
name to the list of systems in the "Path" line. The names may be
separated by any punctuation character or characters (except "."
which is considered part of the hostname). Thus, the following are
valid entries:
cbosgd!mhuxj!mhuxt
cbosgd, mhuxj, mhuxt
@cbosgd.ATT.COM,@mhuxj.ATT.COM,@mhuxt.ATT.COM
teklabs, zehntel, sri-unix@cca!decvax
but also
Special upward compatibility note: Since the "From", "Sender", and
"Reply-To" lines are in Internet format, and since many USENET hosts
do not yet have mailers capable of understanding Internet format, it
would break the reply capability to completely sever the connection
between the "Path" header and the reply function. It is recognized
that the path is not always a valid reply string in older
implementations, and no requirement to fix this problem is placed on
implementations. However, the existing convention of placing the
host name and an "!" at the front of the path, and of starting the
path with the host name, an "!", and the user name, should be
maintained when possible.
I don't care to count the number of software implentations that assume
that "!" is the separator character. [Hint: Lots.]
--Ed
Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept <emv@math.lsa.umich.edu>merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) (08/02/90)
In article <1990Aug1.201232.23136@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, mills@ccu (Gary Mills) writes: | One way to fix this would be to put a bogus user name as the last | component of the Path: for newly posted articles. Come to think of | it, articles posted here via nntp all have `news' as the user name! | That's not much use for replies. Yeah, but it still gets used. We post only about 5 articles/day out of this site (and 4 of them are mine! :-). Mail to "news" at this site goes to me. And yet, with even that small volume, I've had my share of replies to "news", even though the "From" and the "Reply-to" both say the real name of the user. (They *must* be using the Sender field, cuz I don't think the Path even has news...) No, I like the idea that someone said earlier... if you don't want the Path to be used, put BOGUS!yourhost! in the Path instead of just "yourhost!". Pretty soon, nobody will be using those things "cuz they always bounce". Or better yet, if I remember correctly, doesn't the RFC allow *any* separator character? So you could put "yourhost*" in the path or even "yourhost!!", and the chances of that getting kicked back one or two hops after the initial sender (because of rabid rerouters :-) are much higher). Or am I making any sense? Really, what's it gonna take to get people to stop using the Path? Just another news admin, -- /=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ==========\ | on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | \=Cute Quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon, home of the California Raisins!"=/
del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) (08/02/90)
In article <1990Aug1.161201.19243@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <818@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >>... Path: lines DO NOT WORK FOR REPLY. >>Maybe for intra-Eunet traffic, but not in general. It doesn't >>make sense in North America... > >On the contrary, often it does. Not if an alternative is available, >of course, but the odds are still better than even that a Path line >*will* work as a reply address. Yes, in North America. I speak as >someone whose mailer didn't understand @ addresses until quite recently. It won't work for any articles that have passed through here. Both of our news feeds put their uucp names in the Path: line and our current mail configuration doesn't understand arbitrary uucp names since we are currently Internet only. -- Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor Internet: del@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028 Phone: (407) 729-5205 Melbourne, FL 32901
del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) (08/02/90)
In article <EMV.90Aug1202214@urania.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >The RFC (1036) sez [ deleted ] >but also > > Special upward compatibility note: Since the "From", "Sender", and > "Reply-To" lines are in Internet format, and since many USENET hosts > do not yet have mailers capable of understanding Internet format, it > would break the reply capability to completely sever the connection > between the "Path" header and the reply function. It is recognized > that the path is not always a valid reply string in older > implementations, and no requirement to fix this problem is placed on > implementations. However, the existing convention of placing the > host name and an "!" at the front of the path, and of starting the > path with the host name, an "!", and the user name, should be > maintained when possible. If the author of the article uses the Reply-To: header for whatever reason, then reples sent back along the Path: are going to end up in the wrong place anyway. It looks like it is time to update the RFC to discourage the use of Path: and update the newsreaders to do something sensible with the From: and Reply-To: headers for sites with brain dead mailers. -- Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor Internet: del@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028 Phone: (407) 729-5205 Melbourne, FL 32901
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/02/90)
In article <1990Aug1.230858.3264@iwarp.intel.com> merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) writes: >Or am I making any sense? Really, what's it gonna take to get people >to stop using the Path? A workable alternative. For sites which are not in a position to tinker endlessly with flaky "freeware means your time is free" software. Internetocentric misconceptions to the contrary, very few sites use Path because they *want* to. -- The 486 is to a modern CPU as a Jules | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Verne reprint is to a modern SF novel. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/02/90)
In article <1990Aug2.012444.22770@mlb.semi.harris.com> del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) writes: >...It looks like it is time to update the RFC >to discourage the use of Path: and update the newsreaders to do >something sensible with the From: and Reply-To: headers for sites with >brain dead mailers. I would be interested to hear exactly what you think they could do, and so would most of the sites in question. -- The 486 is to a modern CPU as a Jules | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Verne reprint is to a modern SF novel. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/02/90)
I think that new versions should do the right thing and drop the user name from the path and make it unusable as a reply path. It's tough, but USENET can't stay backwards compatible to A news all its life. There are some programs that probably would refuse to feed an article to a site with the same name as the user who posted the article. But there are also programs that 'properly' ignore that final field, so perhaps the best entry there is something like $$USER$$, for the time being. (This would allow programs to start treating the whole path as a list of sites, as $$USER$$ is not going to be a site name. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) (08/02/90)
In article <1990Aug2.032455.9108@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1990Aug2.012444.22770@mlb.semi.harris.com> del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) writes: >>...It looks like it is time to update the RFC >>to discourage the use of Path: and update the newsreaders to do >>something sensible with the From: and Reply-To: headers for sites with >>brain dead mailers. > >I would be interested to hear exactly what you think they could do, and >so would most of the sites in question. Well, in the B news installation documentation (my copy is dated Oct '86) there is a description of the mailpaths files. This file contains the mail paths to a Usenet "backbone" site and a site that can handle "internet" style mail addresses. Each line consists of two fields. The first field is either the keyword "backbone" or the keyword "internet". The second field is a string to be used by printf to create a mail path. As distributed, they are almost certainly wrong. You will need to modify the paths so they work from your site. As an example, suppose that your site's closest "backbone" site was "seismo" and the closest site that understood the "internet" mail systax was "decuac". Your "mailpaths" file would look like: backbone seismo!%s internet decuac!%s The "backbone" path is used when posting articles to moderated groups. [description of posting to moderated groups deleted]. The "internet" keyword is used when the INTERNET option is defined for replying to news articles. A site whose mailer does not understand "internet" syntax can (and should) define INTERNET so that mailed replies use the "From:" line of the article instead of the unreliable "Path:" line. The "internet" site does not have to actually be on the Internet, it just has to have a smarter mailer that can understand RFC822 addresses. It can forward the mail totally via uucp if it is able to find the destination in the maps. It should also be possible to process user@host.UUCP addresses locally if the host has pathalias. -- Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor Internet: del@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028 Phone: (407) 729-5205 Melbourne, FL 32901
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (08/02/90)
In article <1990Aug2.012444.22770@mlb.semi.harris.com> del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) writes:
It looks like it is time to update the RFC to discourage the use of
Path:...
There's no need for an update, it's already there. See RFC1036
section 2.1.6, paragraph 4, first sentence; or RFC850 (its
predecessor), section 2.1.8, paragraph 3, first sentence: "The "Path"
line is not used for replies, and should not be taken as a mailing
address."
...and update the newsreaders to do something sensible with the
From: and Reply-To: headers for sites with brain dead mailers.
There's no need for an update, it's already been done. As far as I
know, the current versions of all the news and mail software in common
use are conformant with the relevant standards.
The problem is that some folks use old stuff and have been doing so
for a very long time - RFC850 is dated June 1983. That doesn't mean
they should be coddled. Anyone who's been nonconformant for over
seven years likely has enough momentum to continue that way
indefinitely. And they're only hurting themselves when they can't
mail replies back to authors.henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/02/90)
In article <1990Aug02.040424.20586@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >I think that new versions should do the right thing and drop the user name >from the path and make it unusable as a reply path. It's tough, but USENET >can't stay backwards compatible to A news all its life. Well, it's a simple choice: you can enforce your ideas of purity and cleanliness, at the price of shafting a lot of users who have primitive software and can't do anything about it, or you can leave things the way they are. I'm not sure what the change is supposed to buy us. -- The 486 is to a modern CPU as a Jules | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Verne reprint is to a modern SF novel. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/03/90)
In article <1990Aug2.061232.26671@mlb.semi.harris.com> del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) writes: >The "internet" site does not have to actually be on the Internet, >it just has to have a smarter mailer that can understand RFC822 >addresses... I had half-forgotten about this particular feature. There remains the problem, though, of finding a suitable site that is willing to be the conduit for all your news replies. Not everyone is keen on the idea. -- The 486 is to a modern CPU as a Jules | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Verne reprint is to a modern SF novel. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/03/90)
In article <1990Aug2.162214.24074@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Well, it's a simple choice: you can enforce your ideas of purity and >cleanliness, at the price of shafting a lot of users who have primitive >software and can't do anything about it, or you can leave things the >way they are. I'm not sure what the change is supposed to buy us. Well, Path is not a great example. But I'm for this general principle. I'm all for shafting a lot of users who have primitive software. The net is too big as it is, I would rather have a better, smaller net by cutting dead wood. I would guess that 99% of users can do something about it if they really want to. If commenting to the people who can update only brings a 'it's only usenet, who cares?' response, then these sites are pretty non-serious participants, and we can live without them. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) (08/03/90)
In article <1990Aug2.162214.24074@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >ath.lsa.umic >Organization: U of Toronto Zoology >Lines: 12 > >In article <1990Aug02.040424.20586@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>I think that new versions should do the right thing and drop the user name >>from the path and make it unusable as a reply path. It's tough, but USENET >>can't stay backwards compatible to A news all its life. > >Well, it's a simple choice: you can enforce your ideas of purity and >cleanliness, at the price of shafting a lot of users who have primitive >software and can't do anything about it, or you can leave things the >way they are. I'm not sure what the change is supposed to buy us. One particular piece of mail that bounced when it got here comes to mind. It was sent back along the news Path: from New Jersey to Florida to Wisconsin to Texas to Ohio to ..., or something like that anyway. It doesn't sound very efficient to me. The chances of the reply getting to the correct destination correctly are not very good, if it does arrive it will take quite a while, and it will consume a lot more net resources than necessary. It sure seems that almost anything could be better. There are periodic discussions in the comp.mail.* groups between the various mail re-router factions on how to handle mail with disgustingly long bang paths. -- Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor Internet: del@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028 Phone: (407) 729-5205 Melbourne, FL 32901
del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) (08/03/90)
In article <1990Aug2.181905.27046@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1990Aug2.061232.26671@mlb.semi.harris.com> del@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) writes: >>The "internet" site does not have to actually be on the Internet, >>it just has to have a smarter mailer that can understand RFC822 >>addresses... > >I had half-forgotten about this particular feature. There remains the >problem, though, of finding a suitable site that is willing to be the >conduit for all your news replies. Not everyone is keen on the idea. I'd recommend looking back along your newsfeed path, since they are handling all your replies now if you are replying to Path:. -- Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor Internet: del@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028 Phone: (407) 729-5205 Melbourne, FL 32901
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (08/04/90)
In article <1990Aug02.203405.40@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: |In article <1990Aug2.162214.24074@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |>Well, it's a simple choice: you can enforce your ideas of purity and |>cleanliness, at the price of shafting a lot of users who have primitive |>software and can't do anything about it, or you can leave things the |>way they are. I'm not sure what the change is supposed to buy us. | |Well, Path is not a great example. But I'm for this general principle. |I'm all for shafting a lot of users who have primitive software. | |The net is too big as it is, I would rather have a better, smaller net |by cutting dead wood. I would guess that 99% of users can do something |about it if they really want to. If commenting to the people who can |update only brings a 'it's only usenet, who cares?' response, then these |sites are pretty non-serious participants, and we can live without them. Brad, I mostly pass by your sayings, and every once in a while actually agree, but you are really off base this time. This is sheer elitist pap, and misinformed to boot, sort of like "let them eat cake". There are a lot of very small sites out there with fairly limited news software, who are hacking away trying to get full news functionality on small systems. I, among others, go to a lot of trouble to try to support these folks because I feel that the net is a new and powerful idea in personal communication, a new medium as it were, so when someone wants to get started to use it I try to help. The fact of the usenet's size is relevant only inasmuch as it will cause change to occur in order to accommodate the continued growth which is occurring. At some point when there are perhaps 3-5 times the number of articles per day than now, serious mutation is likely to start happening to the net, or so it looks from here. Attempting to keep this from happening by inventing some kind of "we were here first so here's the rules to join" gumbo probably isn't going to work because the size of the net may well cause it to be uncontrollable by then. A more important question is more like "is the growth of the net going to make it be awful to me?", which I think you are trying to say "yes" to. So the logical outcome of this is that the net may fragment into the "just us" club which tries to preserve and enhance the current status quo (whatever that is), and the newbies who will massively overrun everything and make a mess by sheer weight of numbers. I'm deliberately overstating things here in order to throw a sharp light onto things (as I see them at least) - there are a lot of people who care about the net as a thing in itself, and it seems that this attitude is a mostly unspoken tenet of communication for many here. The problem arises due to the consequences of this laudable feeling, since the net has become solid and reliable as a means of communication - so much so that it can be more or less taken for granted by those who wish to do so. Therefore it is possible for new participants to see the net as a communication service first and foremost, without having themselves to go back to first principles in order to use it. This is true regardless of the lack of quality of software used to participate for the most part. The important work therefore isn't in the software - the real gamut new users ought to run is the one which inducts them into a community such that they are responsible to it and aware of its needs and means of maintenance. This community is a new form of city perhaps, or something else that hasn't got any exact precedent in human affairs. Nevertheless something will happen, will it or no, so some shared vision is required here, something that the usenet seems quite good at, overall. Trying to exercise some kind of control, on the other hand, is a solution that seems inappropriate to our needs... -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk
vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) (08/04/90)
I've been arguing elsewhere that prepending "somewhere!" would be a good thing for those who want to sabatoge Path: based replies. "Somewhere" is a common dropping of at least rmail, so that no successful site will be named "somewhere". You could even use the presence of "somewhere" as an indication that rabid rerouting is desired by the sender. Vernon Schryver vjs@sgi.com
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/04/90)
OK, Brad. If you want a kindler, gentler, smaller net... Why don't you get together with Friendless and start putting Usenet-II together? It'd be just like starting Clarinet all over again... just not read-only. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/05/90)
In article <29103@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes: >|The net is too big as it is, I would rather have a better, smaller net >|by cutting dead wood. I would guess that 99% of users can do something >|about it if they really want to. If commenting to the people who can >|update only brings a 'it's only usenet, who cares?' response, then these >|sites are pretty non-serious participants, and we can live without them. > > Brad, I mostly pass by your sayings, and every > once in a while actually agree, but you are really > off base this time. > > This is sheer elitist pap, and misinformed to boot, > sort of like "let them eat cake". There are a lot > of very small sites out there with fairly limited > news software, who are hacking away trying to get > full news functionality on small systems. > > I, among others, go to a lot of trouble to try to > support these folks because I feel that the net is > a new and powerful idea in personal communication, > a new medium as it were, so when someone wants to > get started to use it I try to help. This misunderstands what I wrote, because it deleted the context. The problem is that the net is not a NEW and powerful idea. I've been on it just shy of a decade myself. In the world of computer networking, a decade is almost forever. B news was first released in late 1981. Since then, what has really happened of substance to USENET? A few new readers. A lot of pretend politics about newsgroup creation. Faster propagation. But very little that has changed the way an ordinary user (not that I, as a "misinformed elitist" should care about them) works with the net. A newsgroup looks very much the same as it did in 1981, except there are more and different people on it. The last two attempts to add new features to the file format -- References and Supersedes -- still can't be used to their intended effectiveness. And they were added in ~1985. Why? In part because people feel that an attempt to add new features will fail because of the sits out there that won't upgrade. If the choice is between keeping the net as it was in 1981 and possibly losing or inconveniencing a few old sites, I am afraid I would pick advancement. Yes, there is strong pressure to remain backwards compatible. (Hey, Henry, you understand why the 486 is as it is, now?) But sometimes you have to give that up if you want to go places. This is very true for USENET. If that's elitist and uninformed, then so be it. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Towfigh) (08/05/90)
In article <1990Aug02.040424.20586@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: I think that new versions should do the right thing and drop the user name from the path and make it unusable as a reply path. It's tough, but USENET can't stay backwards compatible to A news all its life. This isn't a bad idea at all. What about eliminating Path:, and replacing it with something from SMTP, the Received: header? Then there could be all kinds of information in there, about how long it took for the message to propagate, where it went, how it got introduced into the news stream (it might make spoofing a *little* easier to track). Also, we wouldn't get those super-long Path: lines that occasionally get split and propagate old articles all over the net. The only problem I can see with this is the increase in size for messages. On the flip side, has anyone else noticed that many people these days are putting their FQDN into the Path: header? I'll bet if everyone who could do this did, we would see from the Path: many easy ways to send reply mail. Just some thoughts. -- Mark Towfigh, Racal InterLan, Inc. towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM W: (508) 263-9929 H: (617) 488-2818 uunet!interlan!towfiq "The Earth is but One Country, and Mankind its Citizens" -- Baha'u'llah
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (08/06/90)
In article <1990Aug04.171540.29439@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >B news was first released in late 1981. Since then, what has really >happened of substance to USENET? A few new readers. A lot of >pretend politics about newsgroup creation. Faster propagation. >But very little that has changed the way an ordinary user (not that I, >as a "misinformed elitist" should care about them) works with the net. Right, and if it ain't broke don't fix it. Why can't we simply accept that Usenet works, instead of proceeding from a tacit assumption that it's somehow broken and needs to be fixed? If you want to learn something, the net often has answers. If you want to discuss something, the net usually has people willing to discuss it. New people and sites are coming online all the time, and aside from the usual growing pains and cross-cultural issues (like the BBS-itis I occasionally rail against) it's all fitting together reasonably well. There are complaints, but that's a feature, not a bug. Some people HAVE to complain -- and the net's there for them, too. Senator, I have SEEN messes (I have MADE them!). Usenet doesn't qualify. -- "I'll win. I always do." \/ Tom Neff -- G. Steinbrenner, July '90 /\ tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) (08/07/90)
In article <15727@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes:
=New people and sites are coming online all the time, and aside from the
=usual growing pains and cross-cultural issues (like the BBS-itis I
=occasionally rail against) it's all fitting together reasonably well.
=
=There are complaints, but that's a feature, not a bug. Some people HAVE
=to complain -- and the net's there for them, too.
I find it interesting that, despite the anarchy, the things that are really
broken DO get fixed eventually. A good example was the initial release of
nn, which produced bogus Re^n: lines. Although you still see these things
occasionally, they are not much of a problem nowadays.
I think that the same thing has happened with Path: replies. Yes, they still
exist. The problem, though, has dropped by an order of magnitude. We pass
a reasonable amount of news (I think that we were #72 on Brian's last posting)
but we have few downstream sites that don't have a better path to the Internet.
A couple of years ago, at least 50% of the mail transitting through here was
obviously reverse-path generated. Looking at it now, the amount has fallen to
less than 10% (OK, so that's 1/2 an order :-). By count, the percentage of
mail with 6 or more hops is only 6.65%. A lot of those long paths are mailing
lists (one of my neighbors is on a LOT of lists). I'm not saying that the
problem is gone; I think that it is definitely on the decline. In another 2
years, IMHO, the problem will essentially be gone. In the meantime, it is
not severe enough to warrant trashing uucp connectivity.
While looking through the paths to reply here, I did notice that a lot of the
many hop paths were connectivity/response tests. In other words, people
sending mail to themselves through a site to see if it is alive. Rabid
rerouting kind of makes this valid use of bang paths impossible.
--
Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.comlear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (08/07/90)
Last I checked (least year) the average pure UUCP path that went through me was 5 hosts (before rerouting). -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (09/14/90)
towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Towfigh) writes: >On the flip side, has anyone else noticed that many people these days >are putting their FQDN into the Path: header? I'll bet if everyone >who could do this did, we would see from the Path: many easy ways to >send reply mail. We don't have the option --- our USENET name _is_ our FQDN. We don't do UUCP, just NNTP. Therefore, we're not allowed (according to our map coordinator) to have a map entry. Therefore, we can't register a USENET short name which will have a reasonable chance of staying unique. Therefore, our USENET name is our FQDN. I'd just as soon have a map entry and a USENET name, and not use my FQDN in Path: lines. But that doesn't seem to be possible... --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1990 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (09/15/90)
In the referenced article, coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu writes: > We don't have the option --- our USENET name _is_ our FQDN. We don't > do UUCP, just NNTP. Therefore, we're not allowed (according to our > map coordinator) to have a map entry. > I'd just as soon have a map entry and a USENET name, and not use my > FQDN in Path: lines. But that doesn't seem to be possible... No chance of relocating UIUC to the United Kingdom I guess ? The situation here is exactly the REVERSE. ALL news sites have to be registered in the maps with a UUCP name, regardless of whether they run UUCP or not. Let me do a rough count. Of the 614 mapped sites (as of 1st September) 242 definitely do UUCP, 213 don't say, and the remaining 159 say they don't do UUCP. (The internal UK maps have a field to state which mechanism they can do news transfer over -- most of the non-uucp sites do a peculiar kind of FTP called NIFTP over the UK X.25 academic network JANET). Now, *I*'d argue that *your* map coordinator is right, and that only *real* UUCP sites should be in the maps, but the UKNet authorities seems to be on your side. Perhaps we should swap countries ? :-) -- my .signature is on holiday