fair@ucbvax.ARPA (Erik E. Fair) (10/03/85)
``The time has come,'' the Walrus said, ``To speak of many things. Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings. Of why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings.'' - Lewis Carrol The `fa' groups are a relic of an earlier age. It has been suggested many times that they be moved into mod.* groups, because the mod.* mechanism correctly reflects the nature of these groups. I am now ready to do so. Here is the new naming structure that I propose: fa.laser-lovers -> mod.computers.laser-printers fa.info-mac -> mod.computers.macintosh fa.info-vax -> mod.computers.vax net.works -> mod.computers.works (now gatewayed by rutgers) fa.human-nets -> mod.human-nets fa.poli-sci -> mod.politics fa.arms-d -> mod.politics.arms-d info-applebus -> mod.protocols.appletalk (now hiding inside fa.info-mac) fa.info-kermit -> mod.protocols.kermit fa.tcp-ip -> mod.protocols.tcp-ip fa.telecom -> mod.telecom fa.info-vlsi -> mod.vlsi fa.arpa-bboard -> net.announce.arpa-internet fa.info-terms -> net.info-terms (bi-directional gateway) Mailing lists which are probably of interest that are not gatewayed as yet: info-ibmpc -> mod.computers.ibm-pc info-pyramid -> mod.computers.pyramid sun-spots -> mod.computers.sun info-apollo -> mod.computers.apollo List of Moderators: mod.human-nets human-nets@red.rutgers.edu mod.telecom telecom@red.rutgers.edu mod.computers.macintosh info-mac@sumex-aim.arpa mod.computers.vax info-vax@sri-kl.arpa mod.computers.vlsi info-vlsi@sandia-cad.arpa mod.computers.laser-printers laser-lovers@washington.arpa mod.computers.works works@red.rutgers.edu mod.protocols.tcp-ip tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa mod.protocols.kermit info-kermit@cu20b.columbia.edu mod.protocols.appletalk info-applebus@c.cs.cmu.edu mod.politics poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu mod.politics.arms-d arms-d@mit-mc.arpa mod.computers.ibm-pc info-ibmpc@usc-eclb.arpa mod.computers.pyramid info-pyramid@mimsey.umd.edu mod.computers.sun sun-spots@rice.edu mod.computers.apollo info-apollo@yale.arpa net.announce.arpa-internet arpanet-bboards@mit-mc.arpa Plan: 1) Create new mod.* groups, and move existing fa.* traffic into them. 2) Start gatewaying the other lists not currently gatewayed. 3) delete old `fa' groups. The only issue I see as controversial are the actual names to be used. Gene Spafford <Spaf@gatech.CSNET> has suggested that `systems' be substituted for `computers' to broaden the range of topics that fall under that rubric. I think that `computers' sufficiently describes the entire spectrum without being overly broad. Comments? keeper of the network news for ucbvax, and guardian of the gateway, Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (10/04/85)
I must disagree with the proposal to change the fa.* groups to mod.* groups, except as modified (or rather explained) below. BECAUSE... Many sites on Usenet are also linked to sites with other networks (most notably ARPANET/MILNET [DDN]). Users at sites with direct DDN access (or whose sites are in close connection with DDN sites) save a great deal of money for their sites AND THE SITES THAT FEED THEM NETNEWS by taking the ARPA lists DIRECTLY via DDN, and not wasting the time and money to take them in their news feeds. By converting the fa.* groups to mod.groups, you automatically invite additional (Usenet-based) traffic which might not necessarily be gatewayed to the DDN side. This would force DDN users to start taking the entire mod groups via netnews to make sure they got all the traffic from both sides (including Usenet), not just from the DDN side. The impact on phone bills of forcing sites to take the voluminous fa.* traffic by dialup instead of direct DDN could be enormous. The only way I could see to support this proposal would be if no fa.* group is converted to a mod.* group unless ALL Usenet-based traffic in that mod group is going to reliably be gatewayed to DDN. That is, a user receiving the matching list on DDN would see both DDN and Usenet generated messages. This may be an implicit assumption on some users' parts--I'd like to see it made an explicit requirement. Can the persons making the change proposals clarify this point, please? Would we be assured that all Usenet postings to a mod.* group that was formerly an fa.* group would appear on the DDN side as well as the Usenet side? --Lauren--
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (10/05/85)
Lauren, what are you talking about? There are currently three major netnews dissemination mechanisms in place today. They are net fa mod The `net' groups are in no way controlled or censored; anything that is posted in one of those groups goes everywhere on the USENET. The `fa' groups were established as a ONE WAY gateway of the ARPANET mailing lists into the USENET. It was expected that USENET users could get a posting to one of the mailing lists by using the return address on the article (e.g. ucbvax!info-vax). Unfortunately, this precludes the possibility of automatic reply to the actual author of the article. Anything posted in these newsgroups by anyone (other than the material posted by the gateway) is seen only on USENET, it does NOT go back to the ARPANET. This mechanism is obsoleted by `mod' newsgroups. The `mod' groups are moderated; that is, the content of any given article must be passed on by a `moderator' before it goes out to the newsgroup. This mechanism has been in use on the ARPANET for quite some time now, and while the USENET community has not as yet come to grips with the issue of censorship & trust in the same way that the ARPANET community has, it is in place and working. It fits the model of an ARPANET mailing list perfectly: submissions to the list are mailed to the moderator (and the mechanism for this is automatic; the address is taken from the `moderators' file), and the article has the correct address of the author in it (rather than a relay address pointing back at the whole mailing list). As I said earlier, this mechanism obsoletes the `fa' system. I completely and utterly fail to see the substance of your objections. DDN sites can continue to take the mailing lists as they always have. If they also receive netnews, well, so much the better; they can get those mailing lists via netnews that the USENET community chooses to have gatewayed, if they so choose. Or not. USENET submissions to the mailing lists will continue to come in as mail to the central distribution point, as they always have. What we are changing is the mechanism on the USENET side (to a more flexible one), and the names, to more accurately represent the content of those groups. keeper of the network news for ucbvax, and guardian of the gateway, Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU
jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) (10/06/85)
In article <10523@ucbvax.ARPA> fair@ucbvax.ARPA (Erik E. Fair) writes: >The `fa' groups are a relic of an earlier age. It has been suggested >many times that they be moved into mod.* groups, because the mod.* >mechanism correctly reflects the nature of these groups. Strongly agree, so far. >... Here is the new naming structure that I propose: > >fa.laser-lovers -> mod.computers.laser-printers >fa.info-mac -> mod.computers.macintosh >fa.info-vax -> mod.computers.vax >net.works -> mod.computers.works (now gatewayed by rutgers) >fa.human-nets -> mod.human-nets >fa.poli-sci -> mod.politics >fa.arms-d -> mod.politics.arms-d >info-applebus -> mod.protocols.appletalk (now hiding inside fa.info-mac) >fa.info-kermit -> mod.protocols.kermit >fa.tcp-ip -> mod.protocols.tcp-ip >fa.telecom -> mod.telecom >fa.info-vlsi -> mod.vlsi >fa.arpa-bboard -> net.announce.arpa-internet >fa.info-terms -> net.info-terms (bi-directional gateway) > >Mailing lists which are probably of interest that are not gatewayed as yet: > >info-ibmpc -> mod.computers.ibm-pc >info-pyramid -> mod.computers.pyramid >sun-spots -> mod.computers.sun >info-apollo -> mod.computers.apollo > >... >The only issue I see as controversial are the actual names to be used. >Gene Spafford <Spaf@gatech.CSNET> has suggested that `systems' be >substituted for `computers' to broaden the range of topics that fall >under that rubric. I think that `computers' sufficiently describes the >entire spectrum without being overly broad. > >Comments? The most serious thing that's wrong is the names. It's not just whether "computers" or "systems" must be used. 1) The names are way too long. 2) People on ARPA and people on USENET will be using quite different names. 3) Either the USENET people must all learn the real names in a hurry, or the alias files must get a lot bigger. Making the alias files bigger will increase the number of CPU cycles required by news. I propose the following "radical" suggestion: JUST CHANGE "fa" to "mod"! PERIOD! No 30-character newsgroup names! Let's be kind to the users for once. If we are to gateway new ARPA groups, use the official names as desribed in the "List of lists" document, as nearly as possible (changing the names to lowercase). -- Joe Buck | Entropic Processing, Inc. UUCP: {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!epicen!jbuck | 10011 N. Foothill Blvd. ARPA: dual!epicen!jbuck@BERKELEY.ARPA | Cupertino, CA 95014
fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. Fair) (10/07/85)
In article <228@epicen.UUCP> jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: > >The most serious thing that's wrong is the names. It's not just whether >"computers" or "systems" must be used. > >1) The names are way too long. What is `too long'? The main thing that I am shooting for here is descriptive names. Names that accurately reflect the content of the group. I consider this to be of paramount importance because this network relys on education of users, rather than on any central control. So few people read the Official List of Newsgroups (which contains, among other things, a breif description of the content of each newsgroup), as evidenced by the number of postings you find in the wrong newsgroup(s). What I am trying to do is make the name of a newsgroup sufficiently descriptive that people will do the right thing. I am trying to make it EASIER for everyone. What, for example, can you infer from the name `sun-spots'? Perhaps this is a mailing list for astronomers, interested in the photosphere of the sun. (there is a net.astro, after all, so this is not completely implausible). Perhaps this is for people who use radios, who need announcements of the sun-spot activity on the sun in order to schedule their radio transmissions for periods free of the interference that they cause. (of course, the sun-spot cycle is 11 years, so they might have to be quiet for long periods of time...) What can you infer from the name `mod.computers.sun'? (rhetorical question) But that was an unfair example, I hear you cry. Well, how about `INFO-VAX'? What can you infer from that name? If you didn't know anything about the computer industry, you certainly would not know what a VAX was, as much as DEC might wish otherwise. On the other hand, `mod.computers.vax' clearly identifies what a VAX is, and therefore what the topic of discussion in that newsgroup must be. >2) People on ARPA and people on USENET will be using quite different names. There are `net' several groups that are invisibly gatewayed to and from an ARPANET equivalent, (e.g. INFO-C, net.lang.c). This has been in operation over a period of years, and has not caused problems. The key point here is that the people who read these groups are less interested in a discussion of the group name or charter (except when it has been violated), than they are interested in actually discussing the agreed upon topic. So long as neither side degenerates into prolonged meta-debate, there will be no problem with having different names. >3) Either the USENET people must all learn the real names in a hurry, or > the alias files must get a lot bigger. Making the alias files bigger > will increase the number of CPU cycles required by news. Quantify this, I dare you. The obvious response from my side is: 1) the extra cost in CPU cycles is insignificant 2) the cost is temporary (we can probably get rid of the extra aliases in three months, if it is really beating your poor system to death) The other point that just occurred to me is that since all of these postings emanate from a central point (i.e. ucbvax), nobody has to change the aliases file at all. They have to add some names to the moderators file (which, for the CPU conscious, is only examined when someone tries to reply to an item), and they change their .newsrc (or if their system is properly set up, their user-interface presents them with the new newsgroup when it appears, and changes their .newsrc for them). So your point is bogus. >I propose the following "radical" suggestion: > >JUST CHANGE "fa" to "mod"! PERIOD! No 30-character newsgroup names! >Let's be kind to the users for once. If we are to gateway new ARPA groups, >use the official names as desribed in the "List of lists" document, as >nearly as possible (changing the names to lowercase). I am being kind to the users, as I have explained. I am also, in a single stroke, being kind to the whole network, an achievement seldom realized these days. It is gratifying to see that I was right: naming IS controversial. It's also good to see that there are other people who care about such issues, even if their care is limited to a shout for status quo. It is high time that the network community pay attention to the names of newsgroups, in order to REDUCE confusion, and other problems that inappropriate names cause. Good naming makes the network a real information resource. Bad naming will accelerate the degeneration of the network. I await further responses with poised fingers, Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU
augart@h-sc1.UUCP (Steven Augart) (10/08/85)
I wholeheartedly approve of this suggestion. It makes a lot more sense to me. I know few people who read the fa groups -- I never did so, because it was never clear to me whether or not I would be able to post to the darn things! Keeping only two kinds of groups (mod and net) makes life easier for all of us. As for descriptive names -- I'm in favor of that, too. I am one of those people who didn't know what "sun-spots" was -- I'd assumed it was an astronomical mailing list. Steven Augart swa@talcott.ARPA Just another existentialistic humanist...
reid@Glacier.ARPA (Brian Reid) (10/16/85)
I feel quite strongly that (a) You should not muck with the names of ARPAnet groups (b) Some distinction should be made between "fa" and "mod" groups. It is a matter of factual record that (c) There is no technological need to switch from "fa" to "mod". Elaboration: (a) The name of laser-lovers is "laser-lovers", and that's all there is to it. Any attempt to change its name is fraudulent. Do you want to change the name of "Life" magazine to "Weekly-cute-pictures-and-stories" because it doesn't have enough biology? Be serious. Leave the names of the USENET versions of things equal to the ARPAnet names of them. (b) Lauren is 100% right about the need to maintain a distinction. Since Glacier is on the ARPAnet, I reject the "fa.*" newsgroups from all of our feeds, and gateway them in myself. I intend to keep doing this even if this name change takes place; it will be a lot more work and a lot more error-prone if I can no longer just put a "!fa.all" in the sys file. We in turn feed about 30 sites, and they get the gatewayed-through-Glacier version of the fa groups and not the "real" version. (c) All "fa" groups can be handled as moderated groups. All you have to do is make an entry in the "moderators" file, and all reputable news software will handle it like a moderated group regardless of what its name is. -- Brian Reid decwrl!glacier!reid Stanford reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA
fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) (10/17/85)
In article <13213@Glacier.ARPA> reid@Glacier.UUCP (Brian Reid) writes: >I feel quite strongly that > (a) You should not muck with the names of ARPAnet groups > (b) Some distinction should be made between "fa" and "mod" groups. > >It is a matter of factual record that > (c) There is no technological need to switch from "fa" to "mod". > >Elaboration: > >(a) The name of laser-lovers is "laser-lovers", and that's all >there is to it. Any attempt to change its name is fraudulent. Do you want to >change the name of "Life" magazine to "Weekly-cute-pictures-and-stories" >because it doesn't have enough biology? Be serious. Leave the names of the >USENET versions of things equal to the ARPAnet names of them. There is no excuse for `cute' names. There is no defense for `cute' names. `Cute' names exist to tickle the egos of an `in' group of people who understand them. `Cute' names cause confusion, and make the network LESS approachable, because there is that much more to learn. The magazine analogy does not hold because the media are not equivalent. Perhaps I should send you the letters that I have gotten which said (approximately): ``Gee, I really did think that sun-spots was an astronomy related mailing list!'' >(b) Lauren is 100% right about the need to maintain a distinction. Since >Glacier is on the ARPAnet, I reject the "fa.*" newsgroups from all of our >feeds, and gateway them in myself. I intend to keep doing this even if this >name change takes place; it will be a lot more work and a lot more >error-prone if I can no longer just put a "!fa.all" in the sys file. We in >turn feed about 30 sites, and they get the gatewayed-through-Glacier version >of the fa groups and not the "real" version. I have already answered Lauren Weinstein's objection to his satisfaction, why not to yours? I have also already privately offered to send you the material directly over the ARPANET as part of the multiple insertion system that I will be setting up after the name change takes place. I gather that you consider this insufficient? With regard to your private gateway of the `fa' groups, you took on the responsibility to track changes made by the `official' gateways, in order to maintain your gateway properly, when you started it in the first place. Granted that there have been almost zero changes in almost two years, this still does not absolve you of that responsibility. >(c) All "fa" groups can be handled as moderated groups. All you have to do is >make an entry in the "moderators" file, and all reputable news software will >handle it like a moderated group regardless of what its name is. There is still some cruft running around in the software relating to `fa' newsgroups which Rick Adams would like to be able to remove for the 2.10.3 release, no doubt to the considerable relief of the people running netnews on PDP-11 (and similar) systems with limited address spaces. In addition, the `fa' abstraction has never been properly supported, as the `mod' abstraction is. People STILL post things to the `fa' newsgroups when they shouldn't. This is impossible with `mod'. By way of warning to the network, the control messages to create the new `mod' groups will go out tomorrow (18 Oct 85) at midnight pacific daylight time. I will shift the gateway at the same time, and follow those up with remove group control messages four days later (Monday). Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (10/18/85)
> >(a) The name of laser-lovers is "laser-lovers", and that's all > >there is to it. Any attempt to change its name is fraudulent. Do you want to > >change the name of "Life" magazine to "Weekly-cute-pictures-and-stories" > >because it doesn't have enough biology? Be serious. Leave the names of the > >USENET versions of things equal to the ARPAnet names of them. > > There is no excuse for `cute' names. There is no defense for `cute' > names. `Cute' names exist to tickle the egos of an `in' group of > people who understand them. `Cute' names cause confusion, and make the > network LESS approachable, because there is that much more to learn. > The magazine analogy does not hold because the media are not equivalent. Although I agree that `cute' names are not a good idea in this context, watch where you tread. The Usenet has other cute names, completely unrelated to the ARPAnet mailing lists. Consider the naming of the group net.motss; incredibly cryptic, and therefore cute. Also, perhaps, net.columbia. Although the intended purpose was to create some `instant nostalgia' (cf. Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, currently 1376@gatech.CSNET in net.announce.newusers), I would describe that motivation as cute. Offhand, I'm not even con- vinced that a name like laser-lovers is particularly `cute' in the first place. [The following disclaimer should be unnecessary, but nonetheless... Disclaimer: I am not criticizing either group's existence, merely the naming conventions applied to them.] -- Karl Kleinpaste