unix-wizards-request%brl-vgr@sri-unix.UUCP (06/08/83)
From: Mike Muuss <unix-wizards-request@brl-vgr> The other day I FTP'ed in the backlog of un-sent messages which had been accumulating at SRI-CSL.... They totaled about 800 Kbytes, and printed out, it was a stack of paper two inches high. Right now I still harbor the idea of trying to dole out the "interesting" messages in the backlog, possibly in special "digests", just to catch up, but I am loath to transmit more than a few dozen Kbytes/day for fear of filling disks and such like. Any comments? Best, -Mike
MHARRIS%bbnf@sri-unix.UUCP (06/08/83)
The vast quantity of wizards' junk mail is indeed growing tiresome. How about sub-lists? Like: mail-systems, NROFF, Berkeley, etc. --mh
mark.umcp-cs%udel-relay@sri-unix.UUCP (06/09/83)
From: Mark Weiser <mark.umcp-cs@udel-relay> From: Mike Muuss <unix-wizards-request@brl-vgr> The other day I FTP'ed in the backlog of un-sent messages which had been accumulating at SRI-CSL.... They totaled about 800 Kbytes, and printed out, it was a stack of paper two inches high. Right now I still harbor the idea of trying to dole out the "interesting" messages in the backlog, possibly in special "digests", just to catch up, but I am loath to transmit more than a few dozen Kbytes/day for fear of filling disks and such like. Any comments? If you send 50kb a day for a while you'll be caught up in less than a month. Any site should be able to handle 50kb per day, especially if the administrators are warned ahead of time that it will be coming (as they will be since this is unix wizards). I'd say send ahead. I'm anxious to see it all. If you want to spend the time to select and digestify I have no objection, but I don't think it is necessary.
jbray%bbn-unix@sri-unix.UUCP (06/09/83)
From: James Bray <jbray@bbn-unix> I would agree with MHARRIS@bbnf; I myself am interested in what could be called systems-type stuff (the kernel, compiler, microcode and architecture, etc.) and network stuff. At this point I get a lot of stuff (like ???TROFF???) that I just delete without reading, which is not to say that there is anything wrong with it, but rather that if there were some set of sublists that covered the topics I was interested in, I would probably just subscribe to them, and save myself and the net some time and energy.
MCB%mit-mc@sri-unix.UUCP (06/10/83)
From: Michael A. Bloom <MCB@mit-mc> One way to deal with the backlog problem would be to return each message to the original sender, who could then decide whether to trash it, or resend it to the whole list. This should keep everyone happy. People would be spared messages that are no longer of use, and those who still wanted their messages to be read can be spared retyping (possibly tedious to compose) old messages. It shouldnt be too difficult to do, but problems might arise with out of date return addresses. Anyone else think this is a good idea? - mike
MHARRIS%bbnf@sri-unix.UUCP (06/10/83)
How about a list of backlogged msgs, showing subject fields. Then I could FTP those of interest. --mh
obrien%rand-unix@sri-unix.UUCP (06/10/83)
This message is empty.
mark.umcp-cs%udel-relay@sri-unix.UUCP (06/11/83)
From: Mark Weiser <mark.umcp-cs@udel-relay> I like the return to sender idea. It can be completely automatic and clogs only the machines of people who sent lots of mail originally. It also distributes the workload nicely.
edhall%rand-unix@sri-unix.UUCP (06/12/83)
I agree that sending messages back to the original senders is the best idea. That way questions that have been answered need not be resent, and items where additional information has emerged could be updated. Also, unnecessary flames would disappear. I suspect only about a quarter of the mesasges will find their way back, and many that do will be improved by the chance their senders have to rework them. -Ed Hall
eric%cit-vax@sri-unix.UUCP (06/13/83)
I vote to send it out again in appropriate chunks. - Eric Holstege eric@cit-vax
whm.arizona%rand-relay@sri-unix.UUCP (06/16/83)
I think that the thing to do is to make the accumulated messages
available for FTP and forget about them. I suspect that most
of the messages deal with problems that have since been resolved.
The original senders of messages can repost any items that still
need attention or may be of interest.
There may be a few bits of information that will be lost forever,
but it seems like a reasonable compromise.
Bill Mitchell
whm.arizona@rand-relay
{kpno,mcnc,utah-cs}!arizona!whm