randall@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Randall Atkinson) (09/19/89)
I'd like to propose that we consider creating a new distribution category for news -- "uucpnet" which would be the UUCP sites' counterpart to the Internet distribution "inet". This would permit news traffic which is too commercial for Internet sites to be sent world-wide without using the Internet links. Occasionally there is other traffic which is of interest to the UUCP part of the net but would not be of interest to the Internet. I realise that a number of sites would be both inet and uucpnet sites, but there are also many sites that would be inet and not uucpnet and even more that would be uucpnet and not inet. This is just an idea but please post reactions and we'll see if folks think that this would be worthwhile to do...
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (09/19/89)
In article <757@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> randall@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU (Randall Atkinson) writes: >This would permit news traffic which is too commercial for >Internet sites to be sent world-wide without using the >Internet links. There already is such a hierarchy. It's called "biz". Internet sites are not the only ones for whom some traffic is "too commercial", although it's getting to be that way as more and more "research" sites connect to NSFnet. >Occasionally there is other traffic which >is of interest to the UUCP part of the net but would not >be of interest to the Internet. The only traffic I can think of that would fall into this category would be things that appear in comp.mail.uucp. I don't think there is enough of this kind of traffic to warrant a whole hierarchy for it. Actually the worst problem is that most UUCP sites are geographically isloated if not for the Internet. This means the UUCP-only groups wouldn't REALLY be netwide. Special arrangments would have to be made to carry those groups. Since this is already done for "biz" I think this is a duplication of effort. --Greg
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (09/19/89)
In article <4379@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: }In article <757@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> randall@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU (Randall Atkinson) writes: }>This would permit news traffic which is too commercial for }>Internet sites to be sent world-wide without using the }>Internet links. } } There already is such a hierarchy. It's called "biz". Internet sites }are not the only ones for whom some traffic is "too commercial", although }it's getting to be that way as more and more "research" sites connect to }NSFnet. } Only the original suggestion was for a "distribution" not a new news hierarchy. Big difference (even though distributions havn't been all that widely observed in the past). -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (09/19/89)
In article <285@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >In article <4379@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >}In article <757@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> randall@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU (Randall Atkinson) writes: >}>This would permit news traffic which is too commercial for >}>Internet sites to be sent world-wide without using the Internet links. >} >} There already is such a hierarchy. It's called "biz". >Only the original suggestion was for a "distribution" not a new news >hierarchy. I stand corrected, but there is no functional difference. "biz" still fulfills the suggestion and it already exists. It is still a duplication of effort. --Greg
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (09/20/89)
"Biz" misses the point, which is why there seems to be almost nothing in it. People post full-fledged ads to "biz", with marketing slogans etc. Most sites aren't interested, I suspect, in sending that around on a regular basis with no pattern or controls. Many sites are interested, even in blatant ads, if they came in some sort of controlled pattern. People buy magazines frequently just to read the ads. Almost all sites are interested in useful, interesting commercial information such as product announcements (ie. comp.newprod) or commercial developments directly relevant to netters. The only thing that's not wanted, I think, is abusive advertising that has no reciprocal benefit to the readers. But people think that's what "biz" is exclusively for (it isn't, people just think that) so biz has not developed much. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison) (09/20/89)
In article <4386@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: :In article <285@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: :>In article <4379@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: :>}In article <757@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> randall@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU :>}(Randall Atkinson) writes: :>}>This would permit news traffic which is too commercial for :>}>Internet sites to be sent world-wide without using the Internet links. :>} :>} There already is such a hierarchy. It's called "biz". : :>Only the original suggestion was for a "distribution" not a new news :>hierarchy. : : I stand corrected, but there is no functional difference. "biz" still :fulfills the suggestion and it already exists. It is still a duplication :of effort. IMHO, "distribution" is (or should be) nearly orthogonal with "hierarchy". The former specifies where the article should go. The latter is supposed to say something about the content. There may be good reasons for some hierarchies (like biz) to be treated as having uucpnet distribution even if the article doesn't specify it, and there may well be some connectivity gaps unless/until enough non-inet sites find such things useful. Neither of those considerations invalidates the suggestion. The question is: is there enough need for such a distribution within the mainstream groups to justify the (small) effort involved in creating it?
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (09/23/89)
| Only the original suggestion was for a "distribution" not a new news | hierarchy. > IMHO, "distribution" is (or should be) nearly orthogonal with "hierarchy". > The former specifies where the article should go. The latter is supposed to > say something about the content. Exactly. And this new proposal wants to specify a DIFFERENT thing about the content; not the topic area but the degree of commercialness. So it would be orthogonal both to distributions AND to hierarchies. To make this plainer -- if the proposal was implemented, as proposed, as a distribution, how would you post such a commercial article to U.S. sites only? Right, you couldn't. People who underuse the existing distributions sometimes forget that they exist, but they do, they work, and this would break them. I must also complain about the remark about > the (small) effort involved in creating it Yes, it would be a small effort for a news administrator to add the new distribution to the sys file. But getting all the news administrators on the entire net to do it is not a small effort -- it's a major fuss, with articles in news.announce.important and who knows what else. Many news admins do news things only when they have time to do them, miss announcements, and so on. -- Mark Brader "Great things are not done by those SoftQuad Inc., Toronto who sit down and count the cost utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com of every thought and act." -- Daniel Gooch This article is in the public domain.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (09/24/89)
Actually, I used to argue that distribution and hierarchy should be completely disjoint, and in fact this was the reason that "Distribution:" became a header -- in the old days there was no such thing. But later I came to realize you can't have them entirely disjoint. Quite often you want to have a group called "local.foo" which is a local version of a global "foo" group. For example, most places have a "dist.general" which was the local version of net.general. Of course, you can still implement this by making the two disjoint, by naming the local groups "local_general" instead of using the distribution as a prefix, but it sure is convenient to do the latter and get automatic correct distribution. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (09/25/89)
Distribution: biz This should work just fine. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "That is not the Usenet tradition, but it's a solidly-entrenched U delusion now." -- brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor)
perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison) (09/27/89)
In article <1989Sep23.012427.8789@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
Brad> this new proposal wants to specify ... the degree of commercialness.
From Randall Atkinson's original posting <757@uvaarpa.virginia.edu>:
Atk> "uucpnet" ... would be the UUCP sites' counterpart to the Internet
Atk> distribution "inet".
Atk> This would permit news traffic which is too commercial for
Atk> Internet sites to be sent world-wide without using the
Atk> Internet links. Occasionally there is other traffic which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Atk> is of interest to the UUCP part of the net but would not
Atk> be of interest to the Internet.
Note that the proposal was for a distribution meaning "don't transport this
over the Internet." Although the principal suggested *use* was for messages
which might be considered "too commercial", that was not the *meaning*.
Brad> if the proposal was implemented, as proposed, as a distribution, how
Brad> would you post such a commercial article to U.S. sites only? Right,
Brad> you couldn't.
You can't specify a regional or national limitation when using the "inet"
distribution either, can you? "inet" means "anyplace you can reach on the
Internet." "uucpnet" would mean "anyplace you can reach without using the
Internet."