wnp@iiasa.ac.at (wolf paul) (11/21/90)
In article <2992@litchi.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >three years ago (ahh, for the days when pyramid!csg would email me the >latest Pyramid UUCP for the asking... :-) > /r$ ahh, for the days when there was a reasonably fast turnaround in comp.sources.unix .... but things change, don't they? >-- >Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. >Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I find it hard to believe that all recent submissions to c.s.u. had invalid bang-path addresses; yet they (and all of us) still lose out because there is nothing appearing in c.s.u. So what difference does a domain-based address make? -- W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET
laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) (11/25/90)
In article <964@iiasa.UUCP> wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: >In article <2992@litchi.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >>Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. >>Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >So what difference does a domain-based >address make? > I bet that it means that the aforementioned Mr. Salz is to busy to sort out getting a bounced message home, and that he trusts his Internet host to get it to its proper place. You lose out when he tries to respond only to find that you'd mailed him down a one-way street. att, for example, is listed by pitt in the u.usa.pa maps as "the world's biggest leaf node" because they normally deny forwarding privileges to mail.> -- Laird J. Heal The Usenet is dead! Home: laird@slum.mv.com (Salem, NH) Long Live the Usenet! Away: laird@chinet.chi.il.us
yakker@ucrmath.ucr.edu (matt robinson) (11/26/90)
I posted a program about three weeks ago, which hasn't been posted to
comp.sources.unix as of yet, and I wanted to know if anyone wanted a
copy of this program. It's called MLPD, for Multiple Line Printer
Daemon. What it does is act as a daemon on your local system, and
monitors the queueing of printer jobs to a virtual printer, and
distributes these jobs to any number of real printers. If anyone out
there in net land is interested in this code, please let me know,
as I have it available, and I haven't heard anything from Rich Salz
in quite some time. Hopefully it will be posted to C.S.U, with some
luck, in the future. Take care!
--
Example of Program:
--------
| LP | -----------\
-------- \
/ \ \
/ \ \
------- ------- ---------
| LP1 | | LP2 | . . . | LP(N) |
------- ------- ---------
So all you have to do is type in lpr <file>, and it's off to the fastest
printer! It works now for 4.3 BSD type systems, and SunOS 4.0. I haven't
tried it with any of the other systems yet, but it should be somewhat
portable. If you want a copy, mail me a request, and I will send you out
what I have. Then send me any problems, requests, items that you would
like, as I'll support it to your heart's content, with a bit of time. :)
UCR Rules! (Well, sort of.)
--Matt
______________________________________________________________________________
Matt D. Robinson "...if I only had a brain..."
Systems Programming Group, UC Riverside -- The Scarecrow, The Wizard Of Oz
Internet : yakker@ucrmath.ucr.edu UUCP : ..!ucsd!ucrmath!{yakker,source}wnp@iiasa.ac.at (wolf paul) (11/26/90)
In article <1990Nov24.163906.19793@chinet.chi.il.us> laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) writes: >In article <964@iiasa.UUCP> wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: >>In article <2992@litchi.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: > >>>Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. >>>Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>So what difference does a domain-based >>address make? >> >I bet that it means that the aforementioned Mr. Salz is to busy to sort >out getting a bounced message home, and that he trusts his Internet host >to get it to its proper place. You lose out when he tries to respond >only to find that you'd mailed him down a one-way street. Well now, that I understood anyway. My point was: since there has been nothing appearing on c.s.u in a couple of months, despite the many announcements by folks who have sent Mr. Salz submissions, we all seem to lose out anyway as long as that is the state of affairs of c.s.u. 'Coz I can't imagine that all those submitters used non-domain addresses or black!hole!paths, yet nothing gets posted anyway. I know of at least one individual (doug@letni.lonestar.org) who offered to relieve Mr. Salz if the latter was too busy to continue. I understand that this offer was not even dignified by a response from Mr. Salz, yet things have not improved. So we all lose out, regardless of address style :-). -- W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET
mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) (11/27/90)
In article <971@iiasa.UUCP> wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: >I know of at least one individual (doug@letni.lonestar.org) who >offered to relieve Mr. Salz if the latter was too busy to continue. I >understand that this offer was not even dignified by a response from >Mr. Salz, yet things have not improved. So start a vote to remove comp.sources.unix from the usenet hierarchy, and then start a vote to create a new moderated group called comp.sources.unix. :) Seriously, comp.sources.unix is a great thing to point to when showing how useful usenet is, technically - it's a shame that that resource hasn't been as, er, resourceful of late. It stands to reason that if Rich is too busy to handle c.s.u., maybe he's too busy to answer all the mail he (doubtless) gets about it - so don't credit to rudeness what may be simply overload. Is there a procedure in the Mighty Usenet Guidelines (that are trumpeted so mightily in comp.unix.wizards) for voting in a new moderator ? I've sent Rich mail before (I had something in the queue for about 4 months, last year - that I finally posted elsewhere) and I'm sure he's aware there are a lot of people who would like to see sources again. mjr. -- Good software will grow smaller and faster as time goes by and the code is improved and features that proved to be less useful are weeded out. [from the programming notebooks of a heretic, 1990]
wnp@iiasa.ac.at (wolf paul) (11/27/90)
In article <1990Nov26.170347.3198@decuac.dec.com> mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes: > It stands >to reason that if Rich is too busy to handle c.s.u., maybe he's >too busy to answer all the mail he (doubtless) gets about it - so >don't credit to rudeness what may be simply overload. What makes one wonder is the fact that when the calls for a replacement moderator reach a climax, then Rich finds the time to release a handful of postings, until the calls have died down, and then the group goes to sleep again. Unfortunately a handful of postings is not enough to actually flush the queue, so the backlog seems to get bigger and bigger. -- W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/28/90)
People may pound on Rich, but perhaps he is the symptom and not the problem. USENET is now a few times larger than when most of us moderators signed on. Rich is out of time. Brandon has quit. People give Eliot no end of trouble. People used to give me a lot more than no end of trouble, until I learned just to ignore them. Source and binary group moderating is probably one of the toughest jobs. The postings are large and complex and take time to look at. You have to deal with duplicates and similar programs, the risk of virus and a pile of other stuff. When it comes to source and binary moderating, it may be the case that you start to get what you pay for. The people doing it should get some compensation. I know Rich is against this, but sometimes I think it may be the only way. If there are 30,000 readers for a source group, then a pittance of few dollars/year would hire a good moderator. I doubt it will happen, though. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) (11/28/90)
In <1990Nov28.020040.5518@looking.on.ca> (Brad Templeton) writes: >People may pound on Rich, but perhaps he is the symptom and not the problem. >Source and binary group moderating is probably one of the toughest jobs. >you get what you pay for. The people doing it should get some compensation. yes, I see a symptom of the problem that we have not instituted a methodology of having multiple moderators share the load and to guarantee "continuity and reliability of service". The idea of "compensation" is undoubtedly flourishing in the mind of people who make networking a income-generating enterprise; I wish them luck.
mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov28.020040.5518@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: [...] >Source and binary group moderating is probably one of the toughest jobs. >The postings are large and complex and take time to look at. You have to >deal with duplicates and similar programs, the risk of virus and a pile of >other stuff. > >When it comes to source and binary moderating, it may be the case that you >start to get what you pay for. The people doing it should get some >compensation. I know Rich is against this, but sometimes I think it may be >the only way. If there are 30,000 readers for a source group, then a >pittance of few dollars/year would hire a good moderator. I doubt it will >happen, though. Another way (not the only way :-) is to handle moderation of source and binary groups in the same way that refereed journals handle a similar problem. Have the moderator farm out the submissions to a group of interested folk. Balance the load, share the work, don't put the entire burden on one overworked individual. Put the burden on many overworked individuals. Pay 'em or don't, but don't overload them. Add an X-Reviewed-By: header. Or just let things go along as they are, occasionally greasing the squeeking wheel. -- Mike Murphy mrm@Sceard.COM ucsd!sceard!mrm +1 619 598 5874
shurr@cbnews.att.com (Larry A. Shurr) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov28.020040.5518@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: } USENET is now a few times larger than when most of us moderators signed on. } [Moderators are out of time, quitting, and they keep getting abuse] } Source and binary group moderating is probably one of the toughest jobs. } [Lots of things to take care of] } When it comes to source and binary moderating, it may be the case that you } start to get what you pay for. The people doing it should get some } compensation. I know Rich is against this, but sometimes I think it may be } the only way. If there are 30,000 readers for a source group, then a } pittance of few dollars/year would hire a good moderator. I doubt it will } happen, though. Nope, that solution is too sensible... not allowed... What? OK! OK! :-) :-) :-), just a little levity, alright? Seriously, though. This is a problem which I think we need to confront. 'Course in saying that, I'm likely to get a response saying "Fine! You confront it," but Elm has a 'D' key and rn has a 'K' key for situations like that. I don't moderate anything on the net, but I've noticed that despite my increasing selectivity, I'm still saving more than I have time to "self- moderate;" i.e., evaluating what I've saved and deciding what to keep. At that, I have the advantage of getting my stuff largely from moderated sources from which much chaff has already been eliminated or from ftp sources where I specifically choose the items. The point is, if I have difficulty coping with the flow I pick out of the stream just for myself, what must it be like for someone, who's receiving a flood of submissions, from which they must pick and choose what to pass on to us? Where would they find the "spare" time for that activity? For the PC and MAC worlds, there are whole profit-making enterprises employing people full-time to perform an equivalent task (I realize that many of these "shareware distributors" are not really very serious enterprises and may be wanting in their ethical practices, but others are quite serious and really do what they say they do). I don't have the resources to commit to moderating a newsgroup and I sure as heck can't commit a client's resources. Even if I had the resources, I don't know when I would find the time to do it. Since I'm not indepen- dently wealthy, I can't hire anybody to do it. Any proposals for how to fund a moderation project? (That question probably won't go anywhere, either). regards, Larry -- Larry A. Shurr (cbnmva!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbnmva!las) The end of the world has been delayed due to a shortage of trumpet players. (The above reflects my opinions, not those of AGS or AT&T, but you knew that.)
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (11/30/90)
In article <971@iiasa.UUCP> wnp%iiasa@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: >Well now, that I understood anyway. My point was: since there has been >nothing appearing on c.s.u in a couple of months, despite the many >announcements by folks who have sent Mr. Salz submissions, Better check your system. Though the flow has been low, a "couple of months" is a gross inaccuracy. My archive shows that on October 11 I received flex2.3, pty, and vixie-cron, and on November 26 is received sps2. That's an average of 1 ever 10 days. (I don't have anything on line before that so the average could go up or down - and that's really not a fair way to compute the average, but you get the idea) (This, after all, isn't a PC bulletin board where you must get a rev to you favorite program at least once per month or feel that you are behind the times). -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov28.020040.5518@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: [...] >Source and binary group moderating is probably one of the toughest jobs. >The postings are large and complex and take time to look at. You have to >deal with duplicates and similar programs, the risk of virus and a pile of >other stuff. > >When it comes to source and binary moderating, it may be the case that you >start to get what you pay for. The people doing it should get some >compensation. I know Rich is against this, but sometimes I think it may be >the only way. If there are 30,000 readers for a source group, then a >pittance of few dollars/year would hire a good moderator. I doubt it will >happen, though. I don't have any problems with the job Rich is doing-- personally, I think it's quite a lot to expect of any volunteer, and I don't see that anyone who isn't willing to volunteer themselves should be complaining about how much he has time to do. On the other side though, it seems to me that it would be reasonable to support a full-time position, (there may not be enough work to require a full-timer, but I bet if the position were created the work load would grow until there was more than enough to keep him/her busy) and that there are several ways that it could be legitimately funded. Some ideas for whoever administers stuff like this to kick around: 1. Have uunet hire this person, and pay their salary from a special surcharge to organizations that sign up to receive this group. If I knew I was going to get even 2-3 decent programs a year, I'd be happy to have my company kick in an extra $100 a year- the question is, are there 300 to 500+ companies total who will? 2. If administering a surcharge is a problem, another distribution channel might be to create a special 900 number that you could call to get this group from, and that would be the only way it was distributed: then let the phone company do the collecting. (Yes, there are problems here since once it is on the net people will just hop over a node and ftp it.) 3. There has been talk about shareware authors getting a free distribution channel through groups like this. Why not expect them to kick in? For example, if I want uunet to distribute my program that I ask to get a $20 registration for, why shouldn't I expect to pay uunet $100 to get them to moderate it? As an author, I guess I'd have to figure that if it isn't good enough to get even 5 registrations back from so I can break even, then it shouldn't be sent out anyway. Distribute 100 shareware programs a year this way and you'll have $10K toward someone's salary. (You should moderate freeware programs for free though, so that you still have a way for people to give away software.) How many programs go out every year? (A moderator fee might also serve as incentive to people to bundle their stuff properly instead of distributing 20 teensy tiny little things individually.) I don't know that much about how uunet operates though, so maybe this idea is all dreaming-- it just seems like uunet is a ready-made place to have something like this run from, and the only question is whether there is enough volume to support it. -- Flint Pellett, Global Information Systems Technology, Inc. 1800 Woodfield Drive, Savoy, IL 61874 (217) 352-1165 uunet!gistdev!flint or flint@gistdev.gist.com
andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Nov24.163906.19793@chinet.chi.il.us> laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) writes: >I bet that it means that the aforementioned Mr. Salz is to busy to sort >out getting a bounced message home, and that he trusts his Internet host >to get it to its proper place. You lose out when he tries to respond >only to find that you'd mailed him down a one-way street. att, for >example, is listed by pitt in the u.usa.pa maps as "the world's biggest >leaf node" because they normally deny forwarding privileges to mail.> Umm, I must be stupid, or something. Yes, we are the world's biggest leaf node. But how can we be responsible for unreplyable mail? (I won't argue newspaths here). We don't forward. Period. Therefore, any message that is unreplyable due to att being in the path could not have been sent in the first place. Call us anti-social if you like, just don't call us late to dinner. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (201) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking!
grant@bluemoon.uucp (Grant DeLorean) (12/06/90)
andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) writes: > Umm, I must be stupid, or something. Yes, we are the world's biggest > leaf node. But how can we be responsible for unreplyable mail? (I > won't argue newspaths here). We don't forward. Period. Therefore, > any message that is unreplyable due to att being in the path could > not have been sent in the first place. Call us anti-social if you > like, just don't call us late to dinner. I guess I should go look at the maps before speaking, but why have yourself listed in the maps as connecting to other systems with a full map entry if you don't want mail mapped through you? Since the whole purpose of a map entry is to allow for shortest/best route mapping it seems to defeat the purpose. If you don't want to forward mail to other sites, either don't be fully mapped or don't list the systems whom you don't want to forward mail to in your map entry. There is no need to list everyone you talk to if you won't forward to them... Having just locked horns with a <expletive deleted> from MCI over this very issue (he got mad becuase mail was being routed through him becuase he has/had uunet in his map entry as a DEMAND site) I can't keep quite just now... Grant DeLorean grant@bluemoon ...osu-cis!n8emr!bluemoon!grant ...towers!bluemoon!grant ### So just remember, if a weirdo in a blue suit comes up and offers you some DOS, just say NO! (a message from the President's War on DOS committee) ###