spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (01/30/89)
For over a year now we have had an alternate hierarchy of newsgroups
with a special distribution -- "inet" -- circulating in a subset of all
the regular groups. Originally, the idea was put forth that these
groups would take the place of Arpanet discussion lists (mailing lists)
and they would eventually be merged into the regular newsgroups as
volume and timing seemed appropriate.
The inet distribution was intended to be for just those sites using
NNTP to transfer news on the Internet. The idea was that since those
sites were likely already getting the mailing lists delivered to local
users, by transferring to the inet groups and dropping the mail
distribution it would be possible to save some Internet bandwidth and
local storage. The groups were not made "world" to start with because
there was concern about volume. Since then, more and more sites have
Internet access, Trailblazer modems have become commonplace, and site
admins seem more adept about at restricting news flow on a
topic-by-topic, group-by-group basis.
Thus, I believe that the time has come to turn the "inet" groups into
regular "world" groups. I am seeing postings and getting mail on a
regular basis that indicates that sites are seeing "leakage" of the
inet groups into the mainstream. I also keep seeing postings
suggesting new groups on topics already covered by existing inet
groups.
This is not like creating a new group (or 51 groups): some of these
"inet" groups have existed as mailing lists perhaps as long (or longer
than) the Usenet, so their longevity and volume have already been
demonstrated. Furthermore, they are already carried by hundreds of
Usenet sites. Thus, conducting a poll seems to be less than
appropriate.
Instead, I propose that people just post an comments *against* the
merger. If you feel there is a good reason not to promote the groups,
register it here so people can evaluate your objections. Should no
objections be raised unanswered by mid-January, I'll ask the people
running the gateways to make the necessary configuration change.
If you think this approach is inappropriate, post about that too.
I've already found lots of people in favor of the change, and anyone
currently carrying the inet groups will never note a change. So, it
is incumbent on anyone with objections to raise them now.
What follows is the list of groups current distributed as "inet" groups:
comp.ai.edu Applications of Artificial Intelligence to Education.
comp.ai.vision Artifical Intelligence Vision Research. (Moderated)
comp.dcom.lans.hyperchannel Hyperchannel networks within an IP network.
comp.dcom.lans.v2lni Proteon Pronet/V2LNI Ring networks.
comp.editors Topics related to computerized text editing.
comp.edu.composition Writing instruction in computer-based classrooms.
comp.lang.asm370 Programming in IBM System/370 Assembly Language.
comp.lang.clu The CLU language & related topics. (Moderated)
comp.lang.forth.mac The CSI MacForth programming environment.
comp.lang.icon Topics related to the ICON programming language.
comp.lang.idl IBL (Interface Description Language) related topics.
comp.lang.lisp.franz The Franz Lisp programming language.
comp.lang.lisp.x The XLISP language system.
comp.lang.rexx The REXX command langauge.
comp.lang.scheme.c The Scheme language environment.
comp.lang.visual Visual programming languages.
comp.lsi.cad Electrical Computer Aided Design.
comp.mail.multi-media Multimedia Mail.
comp.music Applications of computers in music research.
comp.os.aos Topics related to Data General's AOS/VS.
comp.os.cpm.amethyst Discussion of Amethyst, CP/M-80 software package.
comp.os.rsts Topics related to the PDP-11 RSTS/E operating system.
comp.os.v The V distributed operating system from Stanford.
comp.periphs.printers Information on printers.
comp.protocols.iso.dev-environ The ISO Development Environment.
comp.protocols.iso.x400 X400 mail protocol discussions. (Moderated)
comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway X400 mail gateway discussions. (Moderated)
comp.protocols.pcnet Topics related to PCNET (a personal computer network).
comp.protocols.pup The Xerox PUP network protocols.
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains Topics related to Domain Style names.
comp.sys.cdc Control Data Corporation Computers (e.g., Cybers).
comp.sys.handhelds Handheld computers and programmable calculators.
comp.sys.intel.ipsc310 Anything related to Xenix on an Intel 310.
comp.sys.northstar Northstar microcomputer users.
comp.sys.super Supercomputers.
comp.sys.ti.explorer The Texas Instruments Explorer.
comp.sys.zenith Heath terminals and related Zenith products.
comp.terminals.bitgraph The BB&N BitGraph Terminal.
comp.terminals.tty5620 AT&T Dot Mapped Display Terminals (5620 and BLIT).
comp.theory Theoretical Computer Science.
comp.theory.cell-automata Discussion of all aspects of cellular automata.
comp.theory.dynamic-sys Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems.
comp.theory.self-org-sys Topics related to self-organization.
comp.unix.cray Cray computers and their operating systems.
news.software.nntp The Network News Transfer Protocol.
rec.games.vectrex The Vectrex game system.
rec.mag.fsfnet A Science Fiction "fanzine." (Moderated)
sci.bio.technology Any topic relating to biotechnology.
sci.math.num-analysis Numerical Analysis.
sci.philosophy.meta Discussions within the scope of "MetaPhilosophy."
soc.culture.esperanto The neutral international language Esperanto.
--
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafbrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/30/89)
I think a good way to figure out if such a group should move to worldwide distribution is to figure out if worldwide distribution is really an efficient way of doing things. Some of these groups and/or mailing lists may have only a few dozen readers. The way I measure this is to try to measure the average number of readers per site. If an article goes to more sites (and is thus transmitted) more times than it is actually read, that's a bad sign. It shows serious waste. So we should simply set a criterion for readers/site. If it falls below a certain threshold, the group does qualify. The first threshold that comes to mind is 1 -- if you're below 1, there is clearly waste. On the other hand, mailing lists don't work 100% efficiently, and they often propagate the same article multiple times over the same path. In a perfect world, they wouldn't, and the cutoff would be 1. Only approximately 90 of the 388 current usenet groups actually meet the criterion of 1 reader per site. Our world isn't perfect, so a lower number, like one third comes to my mind. At 1/3 a group is very wasteful of net resources. 275 of the 388 groups in the latest readership survey have 1 reader or more for every 3 sites. (I did this without accounting for propagation, which alters things a bit.) Anyway, this is how to decide on the inet groups. I am all in favour of any group being created that will get widely read. There are only 2 arguments against creating a group to my mind. The first is that it will create excessive flamage that wouldn't otherwise exist, and the second is that it would be a tremendous waste of net resources to send articles to N sites just so they can be read by 1 person, where N is sufficiently large. (By the way, the highest readers/site currently on the net [ignoring the bogus figure for n.announce.conferences] is 4.9, for alt.sex. I suspect that will die down with time. RHF is 2nd at 4.5) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson) (01/30/89)
In article <5917@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@arthur.cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: >Thus, I believe that the time has come to turn the "inet" groups into >regular "world" groups. For most of the "inet" groups, I agree. Some of the "inet" groups are very low volume and participation, and probably should be left as mailing lists. (soc.culture.esperanto is probably one of these.) There is also an issue with which Internet mailing lists got converted to "inet" groups in the first place. It seems to me to have been done purly on Eric Fair's whim, dispite his stated policy at the time of the create of the inet groups that all Internet mailing lists in Rich Zellich's list of lists would be made into inet groups. The info-prime mailing list (which is on the list-of-lists) has not been gatewayed into a inet group. I pointed out the ommision to Eric soon after the initial creation, asking for it to be added or the policy of creating inet groups to be clarified. After a more than reasonable time (3 months) I publicly asked for a clarifaction from Eric in news.groups. Other than a "I'm a very busy person, I havn't had time" responce, I got no explanation of why esperanto discussions deserve a wide distribution and Prime computers don't. Since then, Eric has had time to create several more inet newsgroups, but apperently not comp.sys.prime. Without a real, published and working policy on how mailing lists become inet groups, I can't realy recomend that all inet groups be blindly converted to wider distribution. Each new group should have to justify itself by expected interest. Also, mailing lists that were not converted to inet groups should have an equal chance to be promoted to net wide groups if an exception to the voting rules is made. (I maintain the info-prime mailing list, send subscription requests etc. to the info-prime-request address below.) -- Bob Larson Arpa: Blarson@Ecla.Usc.Edu blarson@skat.usc.edu Uucp: {sdcrdcf,cit-vax}!oberon!skat!blarson Prime mailing list: info-prime-request%ais1@ecla.usc.edu oberon!ais1!info-prime-request
page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (01/31/89)
It's generally obvious which groups are inet vs which are world groups. The world groups are full of trash, flames and postings like "gee, I had that problem too, I don't know what I did to solve it". I don't think the folks who are reading the inet groups as mail messages are going to like all the added noise that Usenet will bring. Remember when UNIX-WIZARDS and SF-LOVERS (and HUMAN-NETS) were worth reading, and didn't take your whole morning? I'm not saying UUCP-only sites are bad, or anything of that sort. The problem with Usenet's world groups is its flood propagation. The mail pipe may be less efficient, but the discussion doesn't suffer from such horrible time warps. ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page Have five nice days.
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (01/31/89)
In article <5917@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes: > > Thus, I believe that the time has come to turn the "inet" groups into > regular "world" groups. I am seeing postings and getting mail on a > regular basis that indicates that sites are seeing "leakage" of the > inet groups into the mainstream. I also keep seeing postings > suggesting new groups on topics already covered by existing inet > groups. > > This is not like creating a new group (or 51 groups): some of these > "inet" groups have existed as mailing lists perhaps as long (or longer > than) the Usenet, so their longevity and volume have already been > demonstrated. Furthermore, they are already carried by hundreds of > Usenet sites. Thus, conducting a poll seems to be less than > appropriate. > > Instead, I propose that people just post an comments *against* the > merger. If you feel there is a good reason not to promote the groups, > register it here so people can evaluate your objections. Should no > objections be raised unanswered by mid-January, I'll ask the people > running the gateways to make the necessary configuration change. > > If you think this approach is inappropriate, post about that too. > I've already found lots of people in favor of the change, and anyone > currently carrying the inet groups will never note a change. So, it > is incumbent on anyone with objections to raise them now. A number of people have reaised legitimate concerns that SOME of the inet groups do not rate sufficient readership for conversion into full USENET groups, I also agree with Gene that polls would be inappropriate. Thus I'd like to suggest that it may be appropriate to take a compromise approach which will allow the net community to "vote with our feet". - Gene posts an inet checkgroups message to the world along with the regular USENET checkgroups message with a short message at the head explaining why it's been posted. - Site admins wishing (or willing?) to add the inet groups run the message and create the groups. - After a reasonable waiting period (two or three months) all of the inet groups showing sufficient readership in the arbitron results get moved into the regular distribution. - At this point the descision could be made to keep the remaining groups running exactly the way they are now (preferably with a new top level name to stop the leakage problem), or do something else with them (like turn them back into mailing lists, or merge them with a regular distribution group). It's just a suggestion. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: uunet!mnetor!ontmoh!ontenv!soley VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 OR: soley@ontenv.UUCP "I'm going to Disneyland" -- T. Bundy, Jan 24, 1989
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (02/01/89)
Before turning the Inet groups into World groups, you should probably ask the maintainer of each list if s/he wants that kind of wide-based broadcasting. When Erik first started the massive gatewaying, I know that he contacted each list person to get added; presumably he also explained his reasons at that time. If you turn a smallish Inet-only group into a world-wide Usenet group you should at least ask the list administrator if s/he approves. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them said no. /rich $alz -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan) (02/02/89)
>I propose that people just post an comments *against* the merger
OK, maybe it should be "North America" or "Cheapo" rather than
"world".
(Were I allowed to post *for* comments, I'd say "world" was a good
idea; those lists seem quite appropriate for expensive propagation;
certainly more so than lots of groups we do get full of people selling
houses in Newe Jersey.)
--
From: flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan)
Reply-To: sheridan@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
Portal,MacNet: FlashsMommangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Don Speck) (02/17/89)
In article <2691@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > The way I measure this is to try to measure the average number of > readers per site. If an article goes to more sites (and is thus > transmitted) more times than it is actually read, that's a bad sign. A better measure of a newsgroup's inefficiency is the percentage of sites receiving it where nobody reads it. If all of the readers of comp.sys.something are concentrated on 35 sites (even though it may be wildly popular at those sites), it's wasteful to give it world distribution. The only person with the information to determine how many sites show nonzero readership for a group is Brian Reid, and even he doesn't have enough information to determine how many sites actually receive it. (The "propagation" figure is really the percentage that list it in the active file. Periodic checkgroups messages eventually push this close to 100% for noncontroversial newsgroups. The fact that it takes so long probably demonstrates the prevalence of NONEWGROUPS). Only a third of the groups that Spaf lists as Inet groups actually use "Distribution: inet" headers. The rest are effectively already world-distribution. Some are empty. Last year various rowdies "took over" some of the zero-traffic Inet groups (comp.os.rsts, comp.terminals.bitgraph) to use as chat groups. To my mind, this is sufficient reason for removing groups that have fallen into long disuse. This would be a good time to perform such a housecleaning on the Inet groups. I propose that any newsgroup with no traffic for 3 months be dropped from Spaf's list of official newsgroups (or dropped from the moderated list).
Makey@LOGICON.ARPA (Jeff Makey) (02/24/89)
In article <9623@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> mangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Don Speck) writes: >I propose that any newsgroup with no traffic for 3 months be >dropped from Spaf's list of official newsgroups (or dropped >from the moderated list). My news feed was turned on last November 7th, about 3 1/2 months ago. Below is the list of 20 newsgroups for which I have received a total of 0 (zero -- count 'em) articles since that time. inet newsgroups: non-inet newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans.hyperchannel comp.graphics.digest (Moderated) comp.dcom.lans.v2lni comp.society (Moderated) comp.lang.clu (Moderated) comp.std.mumps (Moderated) comp.lang.idl comp.sys.workstations (Moderated) comp.lang.lisp.franz comp.unix (Moderated) comp.lang.visual soc.human-nets (Moderated) comp.mail.multi-media alt.sources.amiga (Moderated) comp.os.cpm.amethyst comp.protocols.iso.dev-environ comp.protocols.pup comp.sys.intel.ipsc310 rec.games.vectrex rec.mag.fsfnet (Moderated) It looks like the some of the inet groups have a distribution problem, or else have already died quietly. I'll be sending a query to Eric Fair <fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu>, who seems to be "in charge" of the inet groups, to check on this. The number of moderated comatose newsgroups is rather surprising. Does anyone know if any of these are actually alive? (I know that the last HUMAN-NETS Digest, volume 10, #5, was sent out on 4 June 1987 -- a year and a half ago. Occasional mail to the moderator has been delivered but gone unanswered. He's alive, 'cause he posted to soc.politics just yesterday.) :: Jeff Makey Department of Tautological Pleonasms and Superfluous Redundancies Department Disclaimer: Logicon doesn't even know we're running news. Internet: Makey@LOGICON.ARPA UUCP: {nosc,ucsd}!logicon.arpa!Makey