gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (11/12/85)
I have received votes from 15 sites, with 14/15 supporting the
rmgrouping of net.flame. A significant percentage of those 14 are no
longer passing net.flame.
I see from Rick Adams' message that a significant percentage of the
backbone is not going to carry net.flame anymore. Well, it looks like a
major reduction in, if not the removal of, net.flame.
I just have one suggestion, that no rmgroups be issued on net.flame
until a week or so after most machines no longer decide to carry it. If
the volume drops to a tolerable level, either the remaining sites that
pass it can set up alternate feeds or make local distributions.
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@mit-eddie.mit.eduapak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) (11/14/85)
In article <401@mit-eddie.UUCP> gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >I have received votes from 15 sites, with 14/15 supporting the >rmgrouping of net.flame. A significant percentage of those 14 are no >longer passing net.flame. > >I see from Rick Adams' message that a significant percentage of the >backbone is not going to carry net.flame anymore. Well, it looks like a >major reduction in, if not the removal of, net.flame. > >I just have one suggestion, that no rmgroups be issued on net.flame >until a week or so after most machines no longer decide to carry it. If >the volume drops to a tolerable level, either the remaining sites that >pass it can set up alternate feeds or make local distributions. If sites are going to make local decisions about whether or not to carry net.flame, why issue rmgroups? Deciding not to carry a group is one thing, but trying to kill it is dictatorial and unnecessary.