haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) (08/28/88)
[ i am going to start moving all of my followups and articles to news.groups for the time when this actually comes to a vote. the suggestion by t. w. wells is a very good one. we might just have something here ... ] In article <621@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >I'd suggest two groups: comp.sources.archives and >comp.sources.archives.d, the first for posting information on how >to access various archives, the second for discussion of problems >accessing archives (path xyzzy!abcd!foobar didn't work! Help!), >problems with archiving sites (I got bletch.Z from site glorch >and it wouldn't decompress!), archiving systems themselves (try >Bugaboo SW's archive server, wow!), and of anything else relating >to archives and archiving. i hadn't considered this approach. the original suggestion was for an unmoderated newgroup, but with this two group attack it would be worthwhile to have the first group moderated. i'm not sure how good an idea having discussion regarding archive software itself since any such code would be o/s or machine dependent. how many people are running TOPS-20 on a DECSystem-20 this week? the only difficulty i see with this is getting two groups created at once. if anyone in the backbone cabal would like to comment on making two new groups at the same time i would be more than willing to listen. >Alternatively, I'd suggest that there be an established way of >identifying which postings contained archive information (like a >specially formatted subject line) so that we can find the >information we want easily. definitely. if the first suggestion of yours doesn't fly then this would be the only surefire way to insure people can use the info present. - john. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-The Beach Bum at The Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers-=-=-=-=-=-= Very Long Address: John.F.Haugh@rpp386.dallas.tx.us Very Short Address: jfh@rpp386 "ANSI C: Just say no" -- Me
haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) (08/31/88)
[ this article is being sent to news.groups for further discussion. it is just about time to decide what the proposed newsgroup is going to smell like ... ] In article <219@milhow1.UUCP> how@.UUCP (Mike Howard) (...!uunet!milhow1!how) writes: >How about archiving the archive info someplace and periodically >posting a listing of the archive info listings and how to get them. the problem which is trying to be solved is that people don't know where the archives are because there is no clear newsgroup or area for archive site information to be posted. >BTW, I would like that quite a bit better than having the archive info >which I don't care about cropping up in groups I am reading for `content'. i recently stopped cross-posting to comp.unix.xenix for my xenix-ported stuff for exactly this reason. i noticed many of the sites calling in weren't xenix systems so it seemed very pointless to continue bothering those poor xenix folks ... >Are a there any groups which currently exist which would be suitable for >such a list - such as `comp.newuser'? there is a news.announce.newuser newsgroup. not that anyone pays any attention to what is posted there ... news.lists could be used but it is moderated. dealing with moderated groups is a hassle. first you need a moderator ... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-The Beach Bum at The Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers-=-=-=-=-=-= Very Long Address: John.F.Haugh@rpp386.dallas.tx.us Very Short Address: jfh@rpp386 "ANSI C: Just say no" -- Me
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (08/31/88)
In article <6146@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
: One question about comp.sources.archives: would archive sites be tempted
: to post their entire file directory listings, with comments, to the group?
I hope so! The whole idea is to get the information needed to
find the stuff you want, in one place. It does me little good
for someone to say "I have all of comp.sources.whatever except
volume 3." How the heck do I know what *was* in that newsgroup?
: Would it be too much to carry if they did? Should postings be limited
: to "I archive these newsgroups and RFCs"? Will users post numerous
: requests for specific files ("has anyone got this" etc)? Should the group
: be moderated for the foregoing reasons?
My current proposal is for two groups: comp.archives and
comp.archives.d; the first being moderated and for information
about what is available in various archives and how to get it;
the second for discussion related to archives. See my message
<621@proxftl.UUCP>. I have also suggested that we might want to
keep an archive of the archive information. As I said earlier, I
might be willing to do this, or to moderate the comp.archives
group.
---
Bill
novavax!proxftl!billhaugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) (09/01/88)
In article <8649@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes: >Unfortunately, this approach doesn't usually work. i wouldn't leap to the conclusion that it doesn't usually work. my experience has been that it DOES usually work if the information is present. > I have tried >directly calling archive sites with a PC and a modem, and I have always >been timed out well before I get a shell prompt (let alone trying to >figure out how to actually do the download). i have seen much of what you describe, but the source of that problem is someones friend telling them a phone number and nothing more. if you aren't an experienced computer user [ which nevin would seem to be ] just a phone number is not enough information. another problem is that some sites give you 10 or 15 minutes and want you to enter your entire life history. on the other side of that coin are people who know enough to be dangerous and login to the archive guest password, not to access the archive, but to screw with the machine. i have this problem quite a bit and am considering removing the archive guest login on the system. > That is why many people >on the net ask for things to be emailed; they simple can't get anything >else to work! people on the net shouldn't have this problem. a quick look in the maps will reveal the site administrators name and email address. send the administrator a letter and have her explain how to use the archive to you. using email for sources is a waste of net resources. > I'm willing to pay my share of the bill; just tell me >how to get it to work! see the previous paragraph. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-The Beach Bum at The Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers-=-=-=-=-=-= Very Long Address: John.F.Haugh@rpp386.dallas.tx.us Very Short Address: jfh@rpp386 "ANSI C: Just say no" -- Me
haugj@pigs.UUCP (The Beach Bum) (09/06/88)
In article <233@skep2.ATT.COM> wcs@skep2.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart.[ho95c],2G218,x0705,) writes: >In any case, we certainly don't need *.archives and *.archives.d. the current reasoning is that comp.archives would be for moderated postings of archive information regarding actual archive sites and their contents and comp.archives.d would be for unmoderated postings. someone has offered to moderate the group and i have yet to receive a response to a letter which was writtem him. if another moderator would like to offer their services, we could get on with the vote. otherwise, i will formally suggest a vote be taken on comp.archives starting the end of this week. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-The Beach Bum at The Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers-=-=-=-=-=-= Very Long Address: John.F.Haugh@rpp386.dallas.tx.us Very Short Address: jfh@rpp386 "ANSI C: Just say no" -- Me