nomad@verdix.com (Lee Damon) (03/20/89)
In looking through the maps I notice that a lot of people are posting
things like:
#N foo
[deleted]
bar bloviy(DEDICATED), blivit(EVENING)
Now, I realize that things are supposed to look like this, but in foo's
map? This means that foo is advertising a link between bar and bloviy
and another between bar and blivit. Does foo have this authority? Or
even the right? What if bar doesn't want those links advertised? What
if bar removes one of those links and foo doesn't change their map?
What do you think? Should this kind of thing be allowed? Should the
mapping project paople (or what's left of 'em) delete this from submitted
maps (or just bounce them back)?
I know that I would be a bit upset if someone else advertised a link
for castle or verdix in this manner.
(followups to news.admin only please)
nomad (the nasty nit-picker)
============= Lee Damon work: verdix!nomad or nomad@verdix.com \
play: {agora,tessi,verdix}!castle!nomad or nomad@castle.fidonet.org \
fidonet: The Castle BBS, 1:105/302, 503-641-3161 / \
"God" created man in its image, and man being ever humble returned the favor. kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) (03/22/89)
In article <270@verdix.verdix.com> nomad@verdix.com (Lee Damon) writes: >In looking through the maps I notice that a lot of people are posting >things like: > >#N foo >[deleted] >bar bloviy(DEDICATED), blivit(EVENING) > >Now, I realize that things are supposed to look like this, but in foo's >map? This means that foo is advertising a link between bar and ... >What do you think? With two exceptions, I think this practice is wrong. First special case is if foo and bar are at the same site and under common admin- istration. Perhaps the #N line should reflect this by listing both machines, e.g. "#N foo, bar". The other case is for a new link when the postmaster at the other site is a bit slow about updating his/her map entry. For example, I set up a link with sleepy, and notice several months later that sleepy's map entry hasn't been updated yet. I feel justified in adding sleepy ditka(DEMAND) to ditka's map entry, assuming we agreed to a DEMAND link in that direction. As soon as I noticed that sleepy's entry has been updated, I'd delete the line from ditka's entry. >Should this kind of thing be allowed? Except for the two cases I mention above, no. >Should the mapping project paople (or what's left of 'em) delete >this from submitted maps (or just bounce them back)? It seems appropriate that they take some action. >nomad (the nasty nit-picker) Good to see I'm not alone. :-) -- Karl Swartz |UUCP {ames!hc!rt1,decuac!netsys}!ditka!kls 1-505/667-7777 (work) |ARPA rt1!ditka!kls@hc.dspo.gov 1-505/672-3113 (home) |BIX kswartz "I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." (Twain)
david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) (03/27/89)
In article <976@ditka.UUCP> kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) writes: >In article <270@verdix.verdix.com> nomad@verdix.com (Lee Damon) writes: >>...I notice that a lot of people are posting things like: >>#N foo >>[deleted] >>bar bloviy(DEDICATED), blivit(EVENING) >>Now, I realize that things are supposed to look like this, but in foo's >>map? This means that foo is advertising a link between bar and ... >>What do you think? >With two exceptions, I think this practice is wrong. First special >case is if foo and bar are at the same site and under common admin- >istration. Perhaps the #N line should reflect this by listing both >machines, e.g. "#N foo, bar". I would suggest this iff "foo" and "bar" were, in fact, the same machine. (The maps are sometimes used for other than their pathalias information; placing such #N lines in map entries can be rather confusing, at best.) I would *hope* that the pathalias information would be consistent with the commentary.... (Silly, idealistic me....) >The other case is for a new link when the postmaster at the other >site is a bit slow about updating his/her map entry. [Example deleted] This ought not be an issue for new sites; upon seeing the "forward link," pathalias will assume the existence of a reverse link that is DEAD. If that's the only way to get to a machine -- not uncommon if it is, in fact, a new site -- pathalias will still figure that DEAD link is the only way to get to the site. (Regardless of the "cost" of the link, what pathalias makes is finally a binary decision: is the link to be used or not?) For a new link for a previously-existing site, yes, there is a potential for problems if this occurs. However, I still would not recommend the action being discussed as a solution -- after all, it really *is* someone else's map entry. That person needs to be responsible for it -- period. >>Should this kind of thing be allowed? >Except for the two cases I mention above, no. As indicated, I wouldn't even go that far. I don't think it should be done -- period. >>Should the mapping project paople (or what's left of 'em) delete >>this from submitted maps (or just bounce them back)? >It seems appropriate that they take some action. Agreed. >>nomad (the nasty nit-picker) >Good to see I'm not alone. :-) Well, I'm not at all sure how many of me I'd like on the net.... :-) Your for better maop entries, david -- David H. Wolfskill uucp: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!david InterNet: david@dhw68k.cts.com
nca-maps@apple.com (Northern California UUCP Map Coordinator) (04/01/89)
In general, the UUCP map coordinators don't allow this. There have been many specific exceptions made, however, usually for related sites (e.g. two sites belonging to the same person/company). If you spot one that you don't like (esp. if it's doing your mail dirt), complain to the UUCP map coordinator who is responsible for the map in which that route appears (their names are on every file). S/he probably missed it, and will be glad to nuke it. Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com