lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (08/30/85)
Some interesting questions arise... Someone recently proposed a "net.peace" group. While the cause would appear quite laudable, it presents a general problem as well. Does USENET exist to provide "free or cheap" conduits for any and all groups that might desire to "piggyback" their operations onto the net? For example, in the case of the net.peace proposal, an implied benefit of using USENET was that it would reduce costs for the "organizing" activities of peace activists. Of course, this could only occur since other people and organizations would be footing the various bills, one way or another. Is it proper to try use the network in this manner? Another point. Let's say for the sake of the argument that we say net.peace is OK (remember, the person proposing it suggested it would be used for organizing activities). What do we say when OTHER groups come along? Hawkish groups? Religious groups? Racial hate groups? Not to mention commercial trade industry groups of one sort or another. What if THEY also want to "cut their costs" by using USENET as a virtually "free" information conduit (from their standpoint, anyway?) Be they commercial or not, is this really what USENET should be used for? We're going to see more and more cases where the use of the network will become confused between pure "information exchange" and "the furtherance of specific causes." My own view is that USENET should concentrate on the former and discourage the latter in newsgroups. I invite comment. --Lauren--
jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan) (09/02/85)
In article <770@vortex.UUCP>, lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > Some interesting questions arise... > > Someone recently proposed a "net.peace" group. While the cause would > appear quite laudable, it presents a general problem as well. > > Does USENET exist to provide "free or cheap" conduits for any and > all groups that might desire to "piggyback" their operations onto the > net? For example, in the case of the net.peace proposal, an implied > benefit of using USENET was that it would reduce costs for the > "organizing" activities of peace activists. Of course, this could > only occur since other people and organizations would be footing > the various bills, one way or another. Is it proper to try use > the network in this manner? > Ignoring the question of "organizing" (see below), there is a real need, I am convinced, for a peace forum where people with an interest can share ideas. I would like to go one step further and open up the forum to people who might not have a VAX in their office, but who would love to share ideas with other kindred sould. Their financial arrangements, it seems to me, are between them and whoever supplies the port. I don't see anyone getting a free ride, but simply democratising access to a technology that has very high barriers to entry (i.e., owning a VAX). > Another point. Let's say for the sake of the argument that we > say net.peace is OK (remember, the person proposing it suggested > it would be used for organizing activities). What do we say > when OTHER groups come along? Hawkish groups? Religious groups? > Racial hate groups? Not to mention commercial trade industry groups of > one sort or another. What if THEY also want to "cut their costs" > by using USENET as a virtually "free" information conduit (from > their standpoint, anyway?) Be they commercial or not, is this > really what USENET should be used for? > > We're going to see more and more cases where the use of the network > will become confused between pure "information exchange" and > "the furtherance of specific causes." My own view is that USENET > should concentrate on the former and discourage the latter in newsgroups. This is the key point. Where and how do you draw the line? I think that net.peace would quickly become such a magnet for people who want to flame at the rad/lib types that any serious organizing work would quickly become impossible. Besides, who wants to notify hecklers of where their next meeting or event will be? This is best left to private networks, or private forums. What is left is a forum for persons with an interest in peace who want to share ideas with like minded people. I don't see where this conflicts with current net policy, or even how it could be abused. At worst, it could resemble net.flame or net.politics--both of which provide occasional nuggets of humor and intelligent commentary. I would like to see net.peace given a chance, monitored, and evaluated. I think it would make a positive contribution to Usenet. .t>
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (09/02/85)
I have difficulty seeing how a net.peace group could avoid "degenerating" into a parallel of net.politics almost immediately. Our resources for new newgroups are being stretched to the limit. Has anyone else noticed that mail delivery from some major sites has become increasingly unreliable lately? I strongly suspect that part of the problem is the massive load that netnews is taking, particularly on systems with limited numbers of ports/dialers. I can't prove that this is the whole problem, but it certainly seems significant. It might be "interesting" if our resources were limitless, and if we could support the worldwide distribution of anything, no matter how fascinating or mundane, that anyone wanted to say. Of course, nobody would ever be able to wade through all the muck that would result in a non-moderated environment, but that's a different issue entirely. But netnews is seeing a large population increase, and I think we're still at the base of what might ultimately be an almost exponential growth curve. It's becoming increasingly clear that NOTHING we do in the current framework will save the current environment in the long run. It simply will (eventually) collapse under its own weight. But in the short to middle-term, we can try keep things useful for a while longer by trying to avoid unnecessary major new influxes of new discussion groups, especially when such discussion can be absorbed by existing groups. Frankly, if a net.peace group appeared and many in the "peace" community with a computer or terminal suddenly started sending stuff in (when they had nothing to do with netnews in the past) we'd be inundated with material, arguments, counter-arguments, etc. It seems to me that the nature of the network is such that it can only really sustain a certain number of active contributors at any one time. You can theoretically let millions of people READ the materials (just like millions watch TV), but if too many people are trying to send IN material, and if it ALL gets "published" (that is, a non-moderated environment) then the overload is going to get worse and worse, both in terms of costs (both obvious and non-obvious) and in terms of information "saturation" that will gradually cause more and more people to stop reading netnews. We are at a critical phase in netnews' lifecycle. It is time to step back and reconsider what we really want netnews to be, and how to deal with 100's of 1000's of users in the near future, many of whom may want to send in ALL SORTS of stuff, or start ALL SORTS of groups. At any given time, we all have finite resources to work with. Even Stargate doesn't represent an infinite resource, though it will avoid many of the problems that we're starting to see on netnews today. But it's not the whole solution by itself. --Lauren--
gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) (09/02/85)
Thanks, Lauren, for a thought-provoking message. My 2c are that net.peace is a good experiment to try. Enough people on the net are interested in creating and keeping the peace that I think there's a critical mass. The net seems to be a forum for more than just techno-talk and I for one am very glad of that. Maybe a "mod.peace" would make it more likely to contain useful info and less likely to contain flames. There are a few cheap "public access" sites here in San Francisco, e.g. the Well (call 415-332-6106 and login as "newuser"), where non-computer peaceniks can access the net. University computer centers are another place this can happen. I will give accounts on my system to peace-people or groups here in SF if they want to network via my system. All these sites all carry their weight (of other peoples' traffic they don't themselves read); they aren't freeloading. If they want to talk peace rather than [or in addition to] unix, why not? PS: I probably wouldn't read it except a skim every few months.
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (09/03/85)
I must agree with lauren and others who have posted. The idea
of letting special interest groups, no matter how laudable their
goals, use the net as a 'free' communications medium is both unfair
to the current users/sites and could significantly speed the death of
usenet.
Sites can only aford so much comm time and disk storage before they
drop out, and once the backbone drops out, the net can no longer
function.
(Also, I can see a politicaly 'hot' group like this being formed
causing a few systems to drop out...is it worth it?)
I agree with a previous posting: let them set up a PC BBS and use
PC Pursuit if they want to keep their costs down.
--
Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus
Development Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner
{genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner
{cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner
slerner%sesame@harvard.ARPA dcj@sun.uucp (Don Jackson) (09/03/85)
I think Lauren has raised a very good point. Everyone burns a bit of disk space, cpu time, and phone charges to participate on USENET. It seems to me that most of the larger sites contribute more than their "fair share" (I don't consider my site to be large). It is easier to justify this expense when you think the groups are all net.unix-wizards and net.lang.c, etc. Next, everyone (including me) subscribes to all the "hobby" type groups that interest them (music, sports, their favorite personal computer). Then there are the "opinion" groups (religion, abortion, politics, and flame come to mind). Now a group for organization of political activity by a group of people with a not universally shared (Universality isn't really the point, it just doesn't make things any easier) agenda. I'm glad I don't have to get my management to sign off on USENET related expenses, especially if they had seen the entire contents of even one days messages. I think the net is pushing it's luck if more and more non-technical groups proliferate. It is just making it more difficult to justify the expense. Many large sites are for-profit publicly-owned corporations, these are the kinds of places where cover-your-??? type decisions are made daily. What are we going to do if some of the big players pull out? One other thing. If person/company "a" gives somebody "b" an account on their computer, fine. If person "b" sends a message from a's computer to z's, there is a very good chance that other nodes helped to pay for that message. It seems that some respondents to this topic are confusing their right to give somebody an account versus the cost to others of allowing that person the priviledge of sending USENET mail. Sorry this is so long. I'm not "anti-peace". I'm speaking only for myself, not my company. Don
ee161bep@sdcc3.UUCP (Paul Van de Graaf) (09/03/85)
In article <774@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: >It seems to me that the nature of the network is such that it can >only really sustain a certain number of active contributors at any >one time. You can theoretically let millions of people READ the >materials (just like millions watch TV), but if too many people >are trying to send IN material, and if it ALL gets "published" >(that is, a non-moderated environment) then the overload is going >to get worse and worse, both in terms of costs (both obvious >and non-obvious) and in terms of information "saturation" that >will gradually cause more and more people to stop reading netnews. > >--Lauren-- I'm not all that familiar with the internal workings of Usenet, but it seems some form of moderation other than moderated newsgroups would help to curb traffic. What I'm suggesting is some form of quotas on traffic on a per site, newsgroup, or user basis. In short, a site, newsgroup, or user would be allowed to post only so much in a given time period, and then no more. Given this kind of advance information, network flow and transmission costs could be predicted. Administration of quotas would be left up to the site. Whether this can be done within the framework of current software remains to be seen, but I'm sure such a policy would certainly improve the signal to noise ratio. When posting is limited, users will think twice about sending out the sort of garbage which fills net.bizarre & flame much of the time. The ability to post articles should be a priviledge that can be taken away for mis-use. New users might be required to read news for a while to find out the policies of the net, before being able to post. Whether this borders on censorship is an issue to be explored, but nearly all newspapers/magazines/etc. are censored in some way (ie. edited). A quota system would provide a form of self-censorship, without requiring the lag and inconvenience of moderated newsgroups. I've left a lot of details out, because I don't know enough about Usenet to comment specifically on its administration. I'm just a user who muddled into this discussion because I read a few pointers to it in net.columbia & bizarre. Additional proposals & comments on curbing traffic would be interesting... Paul van de Graaf sdcsvax!sdcc3!ee161bep U. C. San Diego
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (09/03/85)
Hmmmm. It seems to me that to some extent, we are ALL "freeloaders" on this net, since none of us pays the full cost for distributing our message throughout the network. We may pay a little for the initial sending of the message... but after that it vanishes into the abyss of the net and is paid for by virtually everyone. Thusly, it seems pretty clear that only topics that "everyone" agrees they are willing to pay for (one way or another) should be suitable for newsgroups. Otherwise, mailing lists should be used, ideally getting the permission of intermediate sites if direct connections for distributing the mail are not planned. As a practical matter, unless a mailing list consists totally of direct connections to the recipients, there is by definition "freeloading" going on. The important issue is to what extent we want to discourage or encourage people from using the "community" resources of Usenet for particular ends, particularly given our current traffic and load problems. It's not a matter to be considered lightly. --Lauren--
coller@utah-cs.UUCP (Lee D. Coller) (09/03/85)
In article <60@l5.uucp> gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > >Maybe a "mod.peace" would make it more likely to contain useful info and less >likely to contain flames. > Why not use mod.politics (the moderator is James Armstrong Jr. (nyssa@abnji)). I think that this is the apropriate group for this subject. So far this group has been unused (I have only seen one posting on this machine.). I really don't think we want another net group for this. The last thing the net needs is another net.origins or net.abortion. > >PS: I probably wouldn't read it except a skim every few months. I wouldn't read it at all. (If we create net.peace we should create net.war for the rest of us :-) -- -Lee UUCP: {ihnp4, seismo, hplabs, decvax, arizona}!utah-cs!coller ARPA: coller@utah-cs <<<jenci len jiomme ziubra a ledrum>>>
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/04/85)
In article <2978@sdcc3.UUCP> ee161bep@sdcc3.UUCP (Paul Van de Graaf) writes: >In article <774@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: >>It seems to me that the nature of the network is such that it can >>only really sustain a certain number of active contributors at any >>one time. You can theoretically let millions of people READ the >>materials (just like millions watch TV), but if too many people >>are trying to send IN material, and if it ALL gets "published" >>(that is, a non-moderated environment) then the overload is going >>to get worse and worse, both in terms of costs (both obvious >>and non-obvious) and in terms of information "saturation" that >>will gradually cause more and more people to stop reading netnews. I'll happily (unhappily?) agree with Lauren on this. The sad fact IS that many people are overloading and are cutting back significantly on what they read, or giving up completely. Many of these people are the people we need most desperately to make the net work -- the technical gurus, the intelligent, the sensitive, the core group of knowledge and answers that the net needs to survive. I think there is a significant brain-drain on the net, and this causes a strong negative positive feedback cycle -- the more decent people who split, the faster the ones left will leave because they won't have anyone interesting to talk to. >I'm not all that familiar with the internal workings of Usenet, but it seems >some form of moderation other than moderated newsgroups would help to curb >traffic. Moderation as it currently is set up turned out to be a rather unqualified failure. With the exception of a very few groups that were essentially moderated before (mod.map, mod.newslists, and the std crew) none of the other moderated groups has really shown any positive functionality at all. I just don't think there is a way to graft moderation onto the USENET setup, unless you are willing to redefine USENET. >What I'm suggesting is some form of quotas on traffic on a per >site, newsgroup, or user basis. In short, a site, newsgroup, or user would >be allowed to post only so much in a given time period, and then no more. >Given this kind of advance information, network flow and transmission costs >could be predicted. Administration of quotas would be left up to the site. Leaving the censorship issues out (and I don't think they are significant) I don't see how something like this can be implemented in terms of the current net. You have something like 2000 sites out there, running both netnews and notes, and there are multitudes of versions of each out there as well. Even assuming that you could come up with a workable plan and get it installed in both news and notes (ignoring for now the unique stuff out there as well) and get it installed in the standard releases, they would only end up being valid on the sites willing to upgrade to those releases (and, I might add, sites whose SA upgrades without simply commenting out the code or raising the limits or something). This isn't something that can be dealt with reasonably once it leaves the local site, and that makes implementation real difficult. Also, would a single company with a gateway to 1000 workstations get quota for 1000 sites or one? Also keep in mind that getting the software written, debugged, and into a new release of news is a time consuming project. I've pointed out this fact before and I don't want to go into deathly detail again, but if we had a design today, and if we had a volunteer force of programmers today, and if we could all agree to do it, it would still be a year to 18 months before anyone would see it in a standard release of news, and another year to 18 months before 50% of the network had upgraded to that version of news (this ignores any implementation for notes, too). We're now into 1987, more or less, with less than a 50% penetration. Do we really HAVE until 1987 before this net implodes? I think the major design flaw in USENET is that it has always been designed to be easy to post. We've added lots of ways to make it easier to get stuff onto the network, to include parent articles, to get our words out into the ether. (This is because it is very important to get your words out where everyone can revel in them, and I'm one of the most guilty on this...) What we really ought to have done, and should do in the future, is make it as easy as possible to read (and trash) news as possible, to help the reader get through the trash as efficiently as possible. Rn is the first positive step I've seen in this direction in a long time, but from a design standpoint I think it has some serious drawbacks. I've got some ideas on the whole situation, but frankly, they aren't USENET, and if they ever see the light of day they may not be compatibile with USENET. I think USENET as it currently stands is a dinosaur with the head cut off, with the hindbrain lumbering through its paces, waiting for the collapse. Its probably time to start looking at what we do next. It isn't USENET, it isn't mailing lists, it isn't anything we have now. We can make use of what we have but its time to stop being hindered by it. -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui Son, you're mixing ponderables again
jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan) (09/04/85)
John: I think we see eye to eye regarding net.peace. Usenet is both Use-ful and entertaining largely because it appeals to people with interests that extend beyond their everyday involvement with computers. I've had to rethink my earlier suggestion that net.peace might be a practical organizing tool; it will very likely attract too much flack from net.politics flamers for that to be a realizable goal. As a forum for exchanging ideas re. peace, politics, and peace proposals, I think it is an excellent idea. Opening up Usenet (and especially net.peace) to people who might not normally have access to the networking capabilities is an exciting idea. Your offer of access is very well taken. I hear that The WELL is about to sign a contract with Uninet that would make it easily accessible from all around the country. Even one such node would make all the difference as far as increased public access. My mail has been running heavily in favor of starting net.peace. [I will be happy to verify that to doubters, of whom there seem to be some out thers.] How does one go about calling the question?
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (09/04/85)
> Does USENET exist to provide "free or cheap" conduits for any and > all groups that might desire to "piggyback" their operations onto the > net. ... > --Lauren-- Perhaps these groups do not realize how easily they could us ordinary bulletin board/telephone call technology to serve their needs. (An inexpensive hard disk pc, remote bulletin board software, a 1200/300 modem, and a phone line - let people call in during low rate times if they want to economize.) It would be a fully appropriate use of USENET (in my opinion) to have someone post an article in, e.g., net.politics, giving the telephone number of such a system for the information of all USENET readers. The right-wing-hate-groups apparently have had such systems going for some time. Certainly the peace groups could do the same- and get something done without all the debate ... over USENET. --henry schaffer
control@almsa-1 (William Martin) (09/05/85)
I really think it is unlikely that any real effort will be made to install a limit of "number of characters posted per user-ID" or "number of postings per day per user-ID" or the like, in order to reduce network traffic. (I recall seeing many such comments over the past years, and they never inspired anyone to actually implement the idea.) However, just in case somebody decides to assign this as a class project or something and it really gets done, let me mention one factor (one which clouds many aspect of net usage): reliability. Not all net users operate on hosts or with connections that have high reliability. Some have to take advantage of [shall we say] "openings", when the net is up and news is flowing, to read new news and post a lot of things that have been simmering in their minds or are inspired by the just-read news items. Then, they will seemingly vanish for days or weeks, simply because their news feed is down, or one up the stream is down. Keep this in mind when designing any algorithms to limit traffic per person. Assign a long-enough time period to take into account these inevitable surges and troughs; maybe two weeks or a month, and have your software calculate the total number of characters posted over that whole period, not just per that day or that uucp connection. Also, it would be well to use "number of characters" as the determining factor, not "number of postings" or other counts. If this is done, and well-publicized, it can also contribute to eliminating the glut of "included text" in postings, if everyone knows that including 3500 characters of Joe Blow's ramblings on wombats just to add "Amen, brother!" on the end will subtract 3500+ characters from his or her own allotment. Will
jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan) (09/05/85)
Lauren your objections to net.peace are well taken, but I don't agree with them. As for the objection that net.peace would "degenerate" to a parallel of net.policics, what do you mean by "degenerate"? If you mean it will embody a heated exchange of ideas, then so be it; I see that as a healthy use for the net. As far as duplicating some information in net.politics, it would take discussion off of that group and transfer it to a subgroup, if you will. there would be a substantial transfer effect that would offset much of the increased traffic. I believe this has happened with other split-off groups. Do you want to avoid this effect and allow the traffic on net.politics to make it even more congested? I agree that the net has a problem with traffic levels. There is a simple solution, however: each node can unsubscribe to newsgroups in which it has no interest. If everyone actually did this, it would relieve the storage problems by a large order of magnitude. I would hate to see net.peace be made the whipping boy for a larger problem that needs to be addressed. The implicit question is, when do you start locking out new groups? It seems to me that the net has been quite democratic so far, and that the diversity of groups is a function of the diverse interests of net members. Groups that don't interest anyone die out; groups that interest members should be allowed to bloom. Diversity is the measure of health of any organism, both here and in nature. As far as not letting other prople on the net, that raises a problem that is more dangerous than anything that I have proposed. Where do you draw the line while maintaining some principles of fairness? More to the point, WHO draws the line? If members want to see a new group, then I think it should be allowed to happen.
jpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan) (09/05/85)
In article <3462@utah-cs.UUCP>, coller@utah-cs.UUCP (Lee D. Coller) writes: > Why not use mod.politics (the moderator is James Armstrong Jr. (nyssa@abnji)). > I think that this is the apropriate group for this subject. So far this group > has been unused (I have only seen one posting on this machine.). > Let's not bury net.peace in some obscure backwater (sorry, Jim!) where no one will be aware of its existence. If it is to serve some function, then let's be up front about it. > I wouldn't read it at all. > You certainly don't have to. If you don't want to put up with the increased storage, then you can unsubscribe to it. No problem. But let's at least allow a trial for those who *would* like to see net.peace. > (If we create net.peace we should create net.war for the rest of us :-) > Uh, OK with me, Lee...But just think how much fun you would miss by not having net.peace carried live over ARPAnet!
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (09/05/85)
I wonder if the poor signal to noise ratio of Usenet articles is a byproduct of the rapid expansion of the net, and resulting heavy influx of new users. This growth may slow down soon, as it is now possible to get on the net with a fairly modest investment in Unix hardware and software. With hardware systems capable of running some form of net news access (anything from a $500 used PDP11 system to a hard disk PC clone running Lauren's UUCP emulator), it seems like those who really want to get on the network will be able to do so without too much trouble. Development of true broadcast technology (Stargate) would allow the incremental per article costs to be born by the submitter as he sends it directly to the satellite uplink system, and the system may become somewhat self regulating/limiting. As long as we keep UUCP et al as mysterious as it is, we may spare ourselves the Final Deluge from the masses. :-) -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) omen Any ACU 1200 1-503-621-3746 se:--se: link ord: Giznoid in:--in: uucp Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
control@almsa-1 (William Martin) (09/05/85)
In article <3207@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Moderation as it currently is set up turned out to be a rather unqualified >failure. With the exception of a very few groups that were essentially >moderated before (mod.map, mod.newslists, and the std crew) none of >the other moderated groups has really shown any positive functionality at >all. I just don't think there is a way to graft moderation onto the USENET >setup, unless you are willing to redefine USENET. > While I hesitate to challenge an expert in this, let me mention that mod.rec.guns is working just fine, and I would call it a success. It might be a special case, being a topic of high interest to a number of people, and in great danger of attack by the forces of the enemy (that is, anti-gunners), so it can ONLY exist under the umbrella of moderation. Nonetheless, its success does contradict the statement above. Will
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/07/85)
In article <198@almsa-1> control@almsa-1.UUCP (William Martin) writes: >I really think it is unlikely that any real effort will be made to >install a limit of "number of characters posted per user-ID" or "number >of postings per day per user-ID" or the like, in order to reduce network >traffic. (I recall seeing many such comments over the past years, and >they never inspired anyone to actually implement the idea.) Well, limits on a per-user or a per-site basis can't work unless they are implemented at the posting site (which simply won't be done at the sites that need it most, of course). What can be done is a batching scheme I'm playing with for NNTN (Not Neccessarily The Net), a replacement for USENET I'm fooling with in my copious free time. Currently, batching is done with the F flag, which causes a file to be generated where each line of the file is the filename to a message that needs to be transmitted (/usr/spool/news/net/flame/1134267, for instance). When the batching is done, this file is used to generate the batches in the order of the lines in the file. I'm thinking of changing the batching procedure to include some kind of newsgroup priority. Each newsgroup would have a priority of, say, A-F, set up in some undefined way. When the batching is done, it is done starting with the high (A) priority and working its way down until a specific maximum volume is reached. When that happens, batching stops, and stuff that was of lower priority is simply deferred until the next day. This will put a hard limit on the total amount of volume shipped across over any specific time period while at the same time guaranteeing that the groups of greatest importance get sent. The lower priority groups get deferred until volume slacks off a bit, and if they expire before they get sent out, well, too bad. This gives a site the ability to control its phone bills to a much greater extent than is currently possible, and it allows the stuff the net is really here for to move around while still allowing the 'fun' stuff, space allowing. I would hope, of course, that the net would agree on a priority schedule and size limitations, but the reality is that some sites would change things around to suit themselves and (hopefully) their downstream sites, which si fine by me. If net.games is more important to my site than net.motss, then I bump net.motss down net.games up and net.motss down. This gives an SA a much better excuse for management when asked to justify costs, because the 'secondary' groups only come in when under the limit. It gives you a better chance to budget your phone bill and resources, and depending on the complexity of the priority scheme (I would hope there would be some way for the downstream site to automatically install it on their upstream neighbors) can give you great flexibility. One thing I seriously propose, BTW, is that priority for a given message be set up to be the lowest applicable of the priorities, not the highest. It might also be possible to use this instead of the sys file for turning off groups (and rogue users and sites?) by simpyl defining a special priority '0' to turn it off completely. It looks like a fairly straightforward enhancement of the current system, but I haven't really worked out the details. Feel free to make comments... -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui An uninformed opinion is no opinion at all. If you dont know what you're talking about, please try to do it quietly.
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (09/07/85)
The influx of small machines will serve to INCREASE the growth of Usenet netnews massively. People are starting to gateway in from other networks running all sorts of software on all sorts of systems. Cross-network links are already appearing left and right, and I've seen several more proposed recently. I see nothing to indicate other than continued explosive growth until the load becomes so great that people start dropping off in large numbers, or until hubs start cutting back on the netnews materials they are willing to transmit. We're no longer dealing with a single network here--Usenet is a hub that a variety of networks pour into, and as such we're seeing traffic and growth that is the union of many different nets. --Lauren--
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (09/07/85)
It is against Georgia state law to provide University services to
nonapproved, outside groups. If net.peace was created as a forum for
"peace" groups to communicate and organize, I would be breaking state
law (as it is interpreted here) to carry or forward such a group.
Additionally, some such "peace" groups that might wish a voice on such
a group often promulgate actions which are illegal. Thus, providing
the group with this foreknowledge could be seen as conspiracy, should
some overzealous type wish to pursue such an avenue of prosecution
(don't laugh -- I had to swear out a loyalty oath to uphold the US and
Georgia state consititutions in order to get paid. *Every* grad student
(and faculty too, I think) has to do that here. In the 1980s.). With
these points in mind, if there is overwhelming demand for such a group,
I will not carry it here.
I imagine that any other public educational institution and government
sponsored site is under the same or similar restrictions. Could *any*
site funded by a Federal agency legally carry the group? I doubt it.
I certainly know that the group isn't worth our finding out.
Corporate sites probably would be against it too, if someone of
sufficient authority were told of the plan.
I think the idea is unworkable and although the goals are laudable,
Usenet is not the place to do it. Start a separate net or mailing
list, if you wish. Just describe a new distribution (call it peace or
whatever) and call the other sites interested in being part of such a
network. Foot your own costs and deal with the legal liabilities, if
you are interested, but don't drag the rest of the net into it.
--
Gene "3 months and counting" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spafjpd@kepler.UUCP (John Donovan) (09/07/85)
I'm finally emerging from my ignorance about the magnitude of the
traffic problem that Lauren and you are chafing about. My local
unix gurus took me aside and explained how the good citizens of
the net have been passing along news to their downstream neighbors
for years; and that if they take my advise and "unsubscribe," the
net will be all over. Allow me to apologise for my ignorance
instead of demonstrating it much further.
Chuq, I share your aversion to moderating groups. Those groups
where it would have the biggest impact on traffic are those that
are the most interesting. It would impose a dead hand on free form
discussions.
How about a bandaid solution?: Removing those groups that show
minimal activity for a certain period of time--say, a month. Or,
you could hold a popularity contest for a month, with members
voting for their favorite groups; at the end of which time the lowest
ranking 1/3 (or so) of the groups would be dropped.
This suggestion would primarily impact those groups with the
lowest traffic levels, limiting its effectiveness. In addition, there
would be a transfer effect, as members of terminated groups carry
on their discussions on existing groups. To the extent that this
transfer effect didn't take place, the solution would help.
This is a limited suggestion, but I would like to hear your thoughts.
Best regards/John
--
----
... John Donovan, MicroPro Technical Communications
{dual,ptsfa,hplabs}!well!micropro!kepler!jpdphil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (09/08/85)
In article <1159@gatech.CSNET> spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) writes: >It is against Georgia state law to provide University services to >nonapproved, outside groups. If net.peace was created as a forum for >"peace" groups to communicate and organize, I would be breaking state >law (as it is interpreted here) to carry or forward such a group. >Additionally, some such "peace" groups that might wish a voice on such >a group often promulgate actions which are illegal. Thus, providing >the group with this foreknowledge could be seen as conspiracy, should >some overzealous type wish to pursue such an avenue of prosecution If net.peace were created under such auspices, we would not be able to carry it either. I would be forced to automatically "junk" all such articles. Try a mailing list. With direct UUCP links, preferably. -- A hacker is someone who orders Sweet and Sour Bitter Melon just because it is "an impossible combination". Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
ahby@meccts.UUCP (Shane P. McCarron) (09/08/85)
In article <776@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: >Hmmmm. It seems to me that to some extent, we are ALL "freeloaders" >on this net, since none of us pays the full cost for distributing >our message throughout the network. We may pay a little for the >initial sending of the message... but after that it vanishes >into the abyss of the net and is paid for by virtually everyone. If you think about the economics of the situation, you will realize that no one on the net is really a "freeloader". Sure, you only pay for the initial cost of each message you send; but you also pay for the intermediate or final costs for everyone else. In this way you are paying for the full trip of your message. One might say that sites that only receive partial feeds are "freeloading", since they are not supporting the costs of all the material they aren't getting. However, there aren't that many partial feeds, and they don't feed other people anyway. -- Shane P. McCarron Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!ahby
campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (09/09/85)
> ... > I think the idea is unworkable and although the goals are laudable, > Usenet is not the place to do it. Start a separate net or mailing > list, if you wish. Just describe a new distribution (call it peace or > whatever) and call the other sites interested in being part of such a > network. Foot your own costs and deal with the legal liabilities, if > you are interested, but don't drag the rest of the net into it. > -- > Gene "3 months and counting" Spafford > The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 > CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA > uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf This idea is so good and so obvious, I feel foolish for not having thought of it myself. By using a new distribution, we can use the already-written USENET software, without dragging in sites that might (justifiably) get offended enough to drop all USENET traffic. I am a strong supporter of action (including illegal action) to stop the arms race and the destruction of the environment, but recognize that a net.peace group would be a very bad idea on USENET. Gene's suggestion gives a very viable alternative. If USENET is defined as all sites that get net.announce, we could define PEACENET as all sites that get peace.announce (say). All we need is a set of sites willing to forward peace.all to each other. I can volunteer my site for forwarding such news in the Boston/Cambridge and Maynard (Mass.) areas. Any other sites interested in forming a `peace' distribution? Of course, this means no free ride on the backbone. Volunteer sites will likely have some real long-distance phone charges to deal with. But if the idea catches on it might be possible to get funding from some of the more established peace groups (Center for Defense Information, AFSC, Mobilization for Survival, etc.) -- Larry Campbell decvax!genrad The Boston Software Works, Inc. \ 120 Fulton St. seismo!harvard!wjh12!maynard!campbell Boston MA 02109 / / ihnp4 cbosgd ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.arpa
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/13/85)
>If you think about the economics of the situation, you will realize >that no one on the net is really a "freeloader". Sure, you only pay >for the initial cost of each message you send; but you also pay for >the intermediate or final costs for everyone else. In this way you >are paying for the full trip of your message. One might say that >sites that only receive partial feeds are "freeloading", since they >are not supporting the costs of all the material they aren't getting. >However, there aren't that many partial feeds, and they don't feed >other people anyway. Uh, hmm.... Someone seems to have forgotten the concept of a long distance phone call. There is so much illogic in this posting I'm not quite sure how to deal with it. IF everyone was on something like the ARPA net, then I'd agree with some of those statements. The second you have phone links with unequal cost it goes to pot. You're telling me that a leaf site that brings news into itself and doesn't send it anywhere else is an equal partner with a site like hplabs, which has three feeds to three different geographic areas (Tektronix, sdcrdcf, and hao) and feeds something like seven local sites. Give me a break. How do you equate a local phone call being equivalent to the million dollar a year phone bill at decvax? The reality of the situation is that a few large and generous sites are spending a lot of money supporing a large number of small sites (I recently coined the term parasite, but I'll avoid the pun this time) who make only local phone calls, who don't pass along news to anyone else, and who seem to think that the net really is magic, or free, or something. Oh, another illogic is that partial feeds are the freeloaders, and that there aren't many. Some major geographic areas (europe, british columbia, and australia) ALL take only partial feeds for cost reasons. There are a lot more partial sites than you might expect, and it is a growing reality that the net is becoming increasingly unwilling to tolerate the garbage that is propogating. some rea -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui An uninformed opinion is no opinion at all. If you dont know what you're talking about, please try to do it quietly.