randall@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Randall Atkinson) (02/05/90)
This is a formal request for immediate disconnection of the FidoNET gateway to the USENET group comp.os.os2. Said gateway was created without discussion or vote on USENET and has caused the signal to noise ratio of comp.os.os2 to dramatically decrease. In particular about 1/3 of the messages to that group in the past few days have been of the content "Hi Joe nice to see you here" or "Mike, I sent you the file foobar". The gateway maintainer and I have discussed this and he informs me that he cannot set messages originating in FidoNET to have an appropriate value in the Distribution: field and is not in a position to filter the messages originating on FidoNET. Moreover, the charter of the FidoNET group is much broader than the voted-on charter for the USENET group comp.os.os2 and the FidoNET group specifically includes postings of the sort that belong in comp.sources.wanted and comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d and such on USENET. Finally, many of the FidoNET postings appear as a single long line of text which is unreadable by most USENET people. These differences in charter and problems creating a suitably configured gateway cause the situation to be unresolvable at present. I have encouraged the FidoNET gateway maintainer to create an OS/2 newsgroup under a fidonet.* or fido.* top-level heirarchy. (I first heard of the concept from Tom Neff and it makes a lot of sense). The creation of fidonet.os2 would permit USENET folks to selectively carry the FidoNET articles via existing mechanisms and not have the USENET group be flooded with messages that are not appropriate for comp.os.os2 but which apparently are appropriate for a FidoNET group. Followup postings are directed to news.admin since this posting primarily relates to USENET News Administration.
slh@fred.cs.washington.edu (Scott Heyano) (02/05/90)
Although I agree there was alot of garbage (i.e. stuff I didn't want to wade through) coming in, this topic was discussed and apparently there were no objections. It is also in a temporary test period. As far as inappropriate postings, I've see alot that could be deigned "inappropriate" regaurdless of whether fidonet is here. However, if the fidonet postings were to stay at the same volume they were for the first few day I would vote that the gateway not be contiued at the end of the test period.
jerry@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Jerry Porter) (02/05/90)
I agree most heartily with this proposal. The newgroup is after all
comp.OS.os2 not chatter.software-hardware.os2. No flame intentend toward
those Fidonet people, out there, whom I am glad to be able to discuse OS2 and
OS2 programming with, but I don't really care to talk about the latest BBS
program for OS2. Before the joining most messages were relavent to the
discusion, but now, a large portion are just irritating. If a more general
OS2 discusion area was created I would support it, but this is not the
newsgroup for it.
Jerry Porter | Disclaimer, we don't need no stinkn'
Star's End 512-255-1030 2400baud | disclaimers.
jerry@walt.cc.edu.utexas |
--------------------------------------| |---------------------------|
I LIKE it. | | All roads lead to Trantor.|dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) (02/06/90)
Although the volume in comp.os.os2 has gone up a great deal since the
gateway opened, I don't believe that the chatter level has. Indeed, most
of the 'chatter' discussion has been directed from the Fidonet side
towards the Usenet side. I have seen a 'Hi ,Joe' message from Fidonet, but
those sorts of messages aren't unknown to Usenet. The Fidonet people
have been complaining about blathery .signatures, which is a problem
endemic to Usenet.
The Fidonet people have noted that most of Fidonet's long-haul links are
paid for by private citizens. This has never been true for Usenet;
although more personal Unix boxes are out there than ever before, I suspect
that few privately-paid long-haul links have resulted. (I know many systems
call uunet. How many use non-business dollars to receive a significant
news feed?)
--
Craig Jackson
dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com
{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}news@m2xenix.UUCP (Randy Bush) (02/07/90)
You may be please to know that it is FidoNet gating policy not to gate newsgroups/echos without informed discussion and consent of both sides. The site which is doing so is in gross violation of those guidelines and has ignored pleas from both sides. So whaddya do with a net.@hole? -- ..!uunet!m2xenix!news news@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush)
geoffw@xenitec.on.ca (Geoffrey Welsh dialin account) (02/08/90)
In article <2435@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> randall@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU (Randall Atkinson) writes: >This is a formal request for immediate disconnection of the >FidoNET gateway to the USENET group comp.os.os2. > [...] >The gateway maintainer and I have discussed this and he informs me >that he cannot set messages originating in FidoNET to have an >appropriate value in the Distribution: field and is not in a position >to filter the messages originating on FidoNET. Have you made that specific request directly to the operator of the gateway? I would be disappointed - no, make that alarmed! - if you did not receive his/her co-operation. If it is not the gateway operator that is linking the two nets' conferences, then the gateway operator still has the option of disconnecting the offending Fido site's Usenet feed (and filing a complaint against that site's operator, possibly having it removed from FidoNet... I have strayed from topic). >I have encouraged the FidoNET gateway maintainer to create an OS/2 >newsgroup under a fidonet.* or fido.* top-level heirarchy. I'd like to see *all* Fido conferences carried under a fido.* hierarchy on Usenet, but that would significantly increase the volume presently being carried by the Net and I doubt that enough system administrators would be willing to carry the load, given the "noise", as you call it. Anyway, the bottom line is that you should discuss the removal of the cross-link with the operator but, if you cannot achieve the separation, let me know and I'll see what peace I can disturb in that neighbourhood. Geoff UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org | Kitchener, Ontario FidoNet: SYSOP, 1:221/171 | N2M 5E6 CANADA Data: (519) 742-8939 | (519) 741-9553 D'Alembert's Principle: the Universe was built on a budget!
palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (02/10/90)
From article <567@m2xenix.UUCP>, by news@m2xenix.UUCP (Randy Bush): > You may be please to know that it is FidoNet gating policy not to gate > newsgroups/echos without informed discussion and consent of both sides. > The site which is doing so is in gross violation of those guidelines and > has ignored pleas from both sides. > > So whaddya do with a net.@hole? > -- > ..!uunet!m2xenix!news news@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush) This is not the place to discuss network routeing. I read this newsgroup to find out about OS2. If you want to discuss network crap go do it in news.newsgroups. ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda pacbell!indetech!palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Home {sun|daisy}!ys2!fiver!palowoda (415)-623-8809 1200/2400 Work {sun|pyramid|decwrl}!megatest!palowoda (415)-623-8806 2400/9600/19200 TB Voice: (415)-623-7495 Public access UNIX XBBS
michael@fts1.UUCP (Michael Richardson) (02/13/90)
In article <2435@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> randall@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU (Randall Atkinson) writes: >Said gateway was created without discussion or vote on USENET >and has caused the signal to noise ratio of comp.os.os2 to >dramatically decrease. In particular about 1/3 of the messages Gating from FidoNet seems to be a large problem in many newsgroups, the worst case being FidoNet BBSes that give posting abilities directly to the news system (no gating really involved.) >to that group in the past few days have been of the content >"Hi Joe nice to see you here" or "Mike, I sent you the file foobar". The FidoNet moderator should be clamping down hard on message of that sort --- however, while FidoNet conferences are often free to readers, `netmail' isn't. This is a serious problem. >The gateway maintainer and I have discussed this and he informs me >that he cannot set messages originating in FidoNET to have an >appropriate value in the Distribution: field and is not in a position >to filter the messages originating on FidoNET. You mean he isn't the moderator? Does the FidoNet moderator know about this? I suggest that a FidoNet `policy' complaint be filled against that node. You see, all `backbone' FidoNet echos must have a moderator. This doesn't mean that the conference is filtered, but rather there is someone that sends out tons of private mail to sysops and net coordinators asking that they please make sure the charter of the echo is clear on their board, giving warnings, CUTTING feeds. The moderator is effectively, GOD. >Finally, many of the FidoNET postings appear as a single long line >of text which is unreadable by most USENET people. This fellow obviously has no idea what he is doing. I'm fairly certain that the UFGate does the proper formating. >newsgroup under a fidonet.* or fido.* top-level heirarchy. There exists fidonet.org right now. :!mcr!: Michael Richardson@1:163/109.10, 1:163/138, moderator of AMIGA_PROG. -- :!mcr!: Michael C. Richardson HOME: mcr@julie.UUCP SCHOOL: mcr@doe.carleton.ca WORK: michael@fts1.UUCP I never liked staying in one place too long, but this is getting silly...
herald.usask.ca (Kevin &) (02/14/90)
I was just going to let this whole mess die, but the following message was just too much for me to ignore. From article <567@m2xenix.UUCP>, by news@m2xenix.UUCP (Randy Bush): > You may be please to know that it is FidoNet gating policy not to gate > newsgroups/echos without informed discussion and consent of both sides. Before joining the comp.os.os2 newsgroup to the Fidonet OS/2 echomail area, there was a one month discussion in both comp.os.os2 and the fidonet OS/2 echomail area. In this discussion I asked: 1) Was there any interest in joining the groups together. 2) Who were the responsible people I should contact. Although a few people expressed doubts that I could make it fly, everyone was willing to give the link a try. The fidonet echomail moderator replied to me and said it was ok as far as he was concerned. All I got from the Usenet side was mail saying that since comp.os.os2 is an unmoderated newsgroup, there is no responsible person that I should talk to. I decided in this case to merge only if there was a consensus in the comp.os.os2 newsgroup, which there was (more yes votes than no by about a 10 to 1 margin). So, there WAS "informed discussion and consent of both sides". I didn't just put this together on a whim. > The site which is doing so is in gross violation of those guidelines and > has ignored pleas from both sides. This is also false. When I implemented the gateway, I expected problems. I told all the parties envolved that this was for A ONE MONTH TRIAL PERIOD. I chose one month because I wanted time to fix any technical problems which may arise. If the problems were not fixed by the end of the month, or if the consensus of EITHER the Usenet or the Fidonet side was to cancel the gateway then I would cancel it. I also wanted the one-month trial period to give users on both sides a chance to get used to the other side's customs. I realised that each side would have to "give" a little bit to accomodate the other. I also said that I would immediately cancel the gateway at the request of the Fidonet echomail moderator, or the responsible person in Usenet (if he ever identified himself). I received a few messages from someone who only identified himself to me as "Ran". I told him I was addressing his concerns, and would keep his comments in mind when the end of the one-month trial period was finished. After a few of these messages, Ran finally told me that he was the person who created the comp.os.os2 newsgroup. He also notified me that he had posted a message in comp.os.os2, news.admin, org.fidonet, and news.groups demanding that I shut down the gateway. Once I realised he was the responsible person from the Usenet side, I shut the gateway down as requested. If Ran had told me right of the bat that he was the person responsible for comp.os.os2, and if after doing so he would have asked me directly to shut down the gateway, I would have done so. Because he did not identify himself as the responsible person, I was simply taking his comments as a vote against the gateway to be taken into consideration at the end of the one month trial period. > So whaddya do with a net.@hole? Please, don't let this degenerate into a flaming match. I posted this message so that people who were not following the comp.os.os2 newsgroup would know that this was handled in what I thought was a very reasonable manner. I gave a one month discussion period, at which time if there was no interest I would not have started the gateway. There was interest. I then offered to limit the experiment to a one month trial period, instead of staying with it forever. That gave people a chance to find out what the gateway was like before committing themselves one way or another. I also gave the people responsible for either side of the gateway veto power over the gateway. What more was I supposed to do????? By the way, I agree with RAN that the best way to handle this is to create a new FIDO.whatever hierarchy for posting Fidonet newsgroups. This would ensure that I wouldn't be stepping on anyones toes. - Kevin Lowey (LOWEY@SASK.USASK.CA)
michael@fts1.UUCP (Michael Richardson) (02/14/90)
In article <136@fts1.UUCP> I wrote: >>newsgroup under a fidonet.* or fido.* top-level heirarchy. > > There exists fidonet.org right now. I was thinking about comp.org.fidonet, which is something else. -- :!mcr!: Michael C. Richardson HOME: mcr@julie.UUCP SCHOOL: mcr@doe.carleton.ca WORK: michael@fts1.UUCP I never liked staying in one place too long, but this is getting silly...