bryce@eris.berkeley.edu (Bryce Nesbitt) (03/03/88)
In article <> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: > >I am going to urge a NO vote on comp.binaries.hypercard. My reasons? >Basically, two. First, the volume... >...Second, the limited applicability of this... > >If you take this as a condemnation of binary groups in general, you're >probably right. It would be very intersting to see how many times computer-specific binary messages are actually downloaded by someone.* I strongly suspect is is often a much smaller number than the magic "100 message - mail vs. net breakeven point". Perhaphs what is needed is a demand based system.** A reader sees a *full* description of the binary, and presses a key that means "I want a copy". This message is stored by rn, and transmitted upstream next time news is processed.*** The delay is unimportant for most binaries, (especially long binaries).**** * Yes, I am aware how impossible this would be under the current system. ** Yes I know that it would be much work to add. Also I know, but do not like, the fact that not all sites run the same software, and that may sites run old software. (-: I'll bet more would upgrade if the new system was made incompatible :-). *** A backchannel would be great for reader-based "ratings" on the quality of articles. **** Yes, there is justification for this. The only urgent binaries are likely to be patches. Patches are usually small. |\_/| . ACK!, NAK!, EOT!, SOH! {O_o} . Bryce Nesbitt (") BIX: mleeds (temporarily) U USENET: bryce@eris.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!eris!bryce
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/04/89)
In <1989Sep30.050659.21928@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack):
DM> Wrong, at least in news2.11 and C news. If an article is received with
DM> no valid news groups, it goes into junk and isn't broadcast to neighboring
DM> sites, regardless of the Distribution field. NNTP may behave differently.
NNTP doesn't behave differently because it doesn't behave on that
level at all. NNTP is just a transport mechanism; it interacts with
the existing "News Overlord Software" which makes the real decisions
about where to put articles and to whom to forward them.
Just trying to clear up a misunderstanding before it spreads too far.
Follow-ups to news.software.b which has become a general news.software
group. Perhaps it is time to really change the name.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))