jak@mtunh.UUCP (Jim Kutsch) (06/14/85)
History-- About a month ago Clifford@mit-eddie posted an article in net.ham-radio which among other things told of the Arpa mailing list "packet-radio". Several packeteers in my local area were interested in reading the list. A brief discussion in newsgroup "net.ham-radio" discussed the possibility of gatewaying the "packet-radio" list into "net.ham-radio". However, the Arpa list "info-hams" is already exchanged with "net.ham-radio". There are good reasons to keep the two separate. About three weeks ago, I posted an article asking for comments on the proposal to create "net.ham-radio.packet" as a subgroup and connect it with the "packet- radio" list. In that article I indicated I would create the group after a suitable waiting period if no one objected. Unfortunately, at the time mtunh was having some news distribution problems. Among other things, the proposal did not make it to "net.news.group". In fact, it might not have made it very far off mtunh at all, even in "net.ham- radio". Last week, based on no negative replies and several positive ones, I created the "net.ham-radio.packet" group. I have received several flames since then. Explanation/Apology-- I was not trying to make a decision and force it on the entire net! I am not a newcomer to Usenet (In fact, I created "net.ham-radio" in the first place over 4 years ago!), and know the net procedures. I am sorry that we had news distribution problems here. Solution-- So, let's try again ... Other than the flames on procedural issues, does anyone have any real problems with the creation of net.ham-radio.packet? I am already on the mailing list and am getting the info, but several others around here would like to read it too. I did get several positive replies (from those who saw my first posting). It seems (to me) that there is sufficient interest for a newsgroup and it should be a subgroup under net.ham-radio. I guess at this point the new group exists on some sites, but I know from the flames that others have removed it. Let's get the useless exchange on proper etiquitte etc. over with and get to the technical content of packet radio. What say? Let's shoot for a JUly 15 decision of "net.ham-radio.packet" -- to be or not to be??? Jim Kutsch ihnp4!mtunh!jak or ihnp4!mtunh!ky2d!jak ATTIS Holmdel, NJ (201) 834-2092
louie@umd5.UUCP (06/15/85)
Here's one vote YES; create net.ham-radio.packet for the discussion of
amateur packet radio and gateway to the packet-radio@mit-eddie mailing
list. Let's get this done and over with.
--
Louis A. Mamakos WA3YMH University of Maryland, Computer Science Center
Internet: louie@umd5.arpa
UUCP: {seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!louieglc@akgua.UUCP (G.L. Cleveland [Lindsay]) (06/15/85)
Poor Jim! He tries to do it "by the rules" and what happens... Murphy Strikes!! I hope this time the "word" gets sent to all sites in the prescribed manner. Anyway... >Solution-- So, let's try again ... Other than the flames on procedural >issues, does anyone have any real problems with the creation of >net.ham-radio.packet? I am already on the mailing list and am getting >the info, but several others around here would like to read it too. I >did get several positive replies (from those who saw my first posting). >It seems (to me) that there is sufficient interest for a newsgroup and >it should be a subgroup under net.ham-radio. I guess at this point the >new group exists on some sites, but I know from the flames that others >have removed it. >Jim Kutsch ihnp4!mtunh!jak or ihnp4!mtunh!ky2d!jak >ATTIS Holmdel, NJ (201) 834-2092 My site (akgua) did not remove the new newsgroup. I am all for it! The fact that it needs to be a separate newsgroup for ARPA and/or mailing list gatewaying gives it even more reason for existance. And from what I have seen and heard to date, it is a growing topic. However, the non-packeteers who avidly read net.ham-radio would appreciate not being deluged by packet-related articles. Cheers, Lindsay Lindsay Cleveland (akgua!glc) (404) 447-3909 Cornet 583-3909 AT&T Technologies/Bell Laboratories ... Atlanta, Ga
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (06/16/85)
If you want to create a newsgroup to act as a "gateway" to and from
an Arpa newslist, the newsgroup should be created as a "mod" group, not
as a "net" group. The "mod" option will help get replies to the
right place (as well as postings) and make the gateway simpler
to maintain.
We DON'T want another "net" group which connects to an Arpa group.
We've had problems with such links in the past.
--
Gene "3 months and holding" 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!spafjak@mtunh.UUCP (Jim Kutsch) (06/17/85)
We (those involved) do not want a "mod." group. We have had net.ham- radio for years and have been successful in exchanging news with the ARpa info-hams list. All we want to do is create a subdivision. I do not understand why this is of such interest to all those who don't read net.ham-radio in the first place!!! We have subdivisions under net.religion, net.nlang and several others. If you really want me to do it I can post numerous private mail messages in support of the net.ham- radio.packet group. Is this really necessary? The idea here is just a subdivision of an existing group to better serve those who are involved in the group. Also, Mr. Spafford, I answered your (somewhat presumptuous) private mail to me when you did the rmgroup. However, I have not seen a reply. I guess you would rather have all net folks read our correspondence? Rhetorical question: why does *EVERYTHING* on Usenet have to generate 50Kb of net traffic before anything can be done? The overhead of discussing procedural issues seems to almost exceed the real traffic in some cases! Cheers, Jim
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (06/18/85)
> If you want to create a newsgroup to act as a "gateway" to and from > an Arpa newslist, the newsgroup should be created as a "mod" group, not > as a "net" group. The "mod" option will help get replies to the > right place (as well as postings) and make the gateway simpler > to maintain. > > We DON'T want another "net" group which connects to an Arpa group. > We've had problems with such links in the past. > -- > Gene "3 months and holding" Spafford Gene, get off it. Perhaps you would volunteer to moderate this list? Perhaps you'd like to moderate all the net groups so that problems won't occur? The gateway is very simple to maintain. All we do is some table entries and it occurs. What basis in fact do you have for your statement? -Ron
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (06/20/85)
In article <11294@brl-tgr.ARPA> ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >Gene, get off it. Perhaps you would volunteer to moderate this list? >Perhaps you'd like to moderate all the net groups so that problems >won't occur? No, I certainly don't want to moderate any groups. I do however continue to advocate using "mod" groups for Arpa-gatewayed groups. Let me explain the mechanism to make it a bit clearer. Jill Usenetter wants to submit an article to the news for publication in some newsgroup gatewayed to/from the Arpanet. She "posts" it to the "mod" group using the standard news software (soon to be 2.10.3). The article doesn't start propagating through the net from her node. Instead, it gets mailed to the "moderator" of the group -- in this case, the "moderator" is actually the news distribution software at the gateway. The news software then "approves" the article (possibly with the intervention of the moderator, in the case of a digestified news list on the Arpanet), and gets sent out both to the Arpa side *and* the Usenet side from the same site.a It is entirely possible that no person acts as "moderator" in this setup -- we simply use the built-in "mod" mechanism to support the list. It also provides the means for an Arpa digest maintainer to get things from the Usenet side in a consistent manner. Other advantages: -- Since there is no possibility of followups beating their base article to the gateway, Arpanetters never have to contend with the common Usenet problem of reading responses to articles they haven't read yet. (This is also solved for Usenetters, BTW.) -- with the addition of a human in the mechanism, the newsgroup could be immediately available for Stargate, whenever that goes "live". -- there is almost no possibility of a "feedback-loop" whereby the same article gets posted to one network hundreds of times (this happens about every 6 months with one of the Arpa-gatewayed groups). There, Ron, Have I "gotten off it"? Or did you have something else in mind? -- Gene "3 months and holding" 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
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (06/20/85)
In article <460@mtunh.UUCP> jak@mtunh.UUCP (Jim Kutsch) writes: >We (those involved) do not want a "mod." group. We have had net.ham- >radio for years and have been successful in exchanging news with the >ARpa info-hams list. All we want to do is create a subdivision. See my previous posting about why I believe a "mod" group is preferrable. As to your second point, "We've used oil lamps for years and they work fine -- we don't want any of that newfangled electricity, by crackey!" :-) >I do not understand why this is of such interest to all those who don't >read net.ham-radio in the first place!!! We have subdivisions under >net.religion, net.nlang and several others. If you really want me to do >it I can post numerous private mail messages in support of the net.ham- >radio.packet group. Is this really necessary? The idea here is just a >subdivision of an existing group to better serve those who are involved >in the group. Each subgroup is another subdivision of the "net" group. I still have some faint interest in seeing Usenet continue, although it is fading fast these days, and I'd like to think that responsible individuals are concerned about the effects on the net *as a whole* when they consider new groups. That includes the effects of setting precedents. Also, the interface to other networks is something we need think about. I'm not claiming that there isn't support for your particular group, and I'm sure you can cite lots of others who share your interests. But someone could make the same claim for net.hamsters.and.duct.tape. We need to discuss each group some before it's created to see what the collective "wisdom" produces. There are some questions that need answering such as: How many people will read this new group on the Usenet? 50? Less? More? Would it be better served by making it a mailing list? Would the net as a whole be better served by making the new group a mailing list? Has anybody bothered to poll the current Arpa list members to see if they *want* the Usenet gating? >Also, Mr. Spafford, I answered your (somewhat presumptuous) private mail >to me when you did the rmgroup. However, I have not seen a reply. I >guess you would rather have all net folks read our correspondence? I get, on the average, over 40 pieces of mail per day from people on 4 different networks. I tend to answer letters that indicate they need a response, and not much else. Besides helping to administrate 6 machines, I'm supposed to be finishing my thesis -- replying to every letter I get implies a luxury of time I don't have. Your letter to me (as I remember) didn't really need a reply. You said you were posting to this group about the hows and whys of the group and the accidental creation thereof. That's how it normally works -- why did I need to write you back about that? My mail may have been presumptuous in that I presumed that the group had been created by accident or mistake. I was not going to attribute the flaunting of net "rules" to stupidity or malice -- would you rather I had done that? As for others reading our correspondence -- perhaps some of these issues need to be read and considered by others on the net. Surely you and I alone are not the ones to decide the fate of this new group, are we? -- Gene "3 months and holding" 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
hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey) (06/20/85)
Ron, when creating a gateway group from Arpa to Usenet via a "net" group, is bi-directional capability automatically provided? If not, the "mod" approach is better than the "fa" approach because this facility can be provided easily. I would prefer to see all "fa" groups converted to "mod" groups, just to simplify the news software, and provide for bidirectional transmissions. As far as I am concerned, there need not be a "real" moderator for these groups. Whenever articles arrive, they are automatically posted to Usenet, and the ArpaNet (if necessary). -- Hokey ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey 314-725-9492
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (06/21/85)
> Instead, it gets mailed to the "moderator" of the group -- in this case, > the "moderator" is actually the news distribution software at the > gateway. The news software then "approves" the article (possibly with > the intervention of the moderator, in the case of a digestified > news list on the Arpanet), and gets sent out both to the Arpa side *and* > the Usenet side from the same site.a It is entirely possible > that no person acts as "moderator" in this setup -- we simply use > the built-in "mod" mechanism to support the list. It also provides > the means for an Arpa digest maintainer to get things from the Usenet > side in a consistent manner. > > Other advantages: > -- Since there is no possibility of followups beating > their base article to the gateway, Arpanetters never have > to contend with the common Usenet problem of reading > responses to articles they haven't read yet. (This > is also solved for Usenetters, BTW.) [Agreed] > > -- with the addition of a human in the mechanism, the > newsgroup could be immediately available for Stargate, > whenever that goes "live". But this requires a HUMAN! This WAS my complaint. > > -- there is almost no possibility of a "feedback-loop" > whereby the same article gets posted to one network > hundreds of times (this happens about every 6 months > with one of the Arpa-gatewayed groups). > You overstate the every six months problem. I only ever recall seeing one case that your AUTOMATED moderation would have helped. In other cases, the problem lied elsewhere. -Ron
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (06/21/85)
> Ron, when creating a gateway group from Arpa to Usenet via a "net" group, > is bi-directional capability automatically provided? YES. > > If not, the "mod" approach is better than the "fa" approach because this > facility can be provided easily. FA is not what I'm referring two. FA works by adding a dummy user to our mail list that really is postnews. USENETTERS shouldn't even be allowed to post to FA groups since they are supposed to be READ ONLY. > > I would prefer to see all "fa" groups converted to "mod" groups, just to > simplify the news software, and provide for bidirectional transmissions. > As far as I am concerned, there need not be a "real" moderator for these > groups. Whenever articles arrive, they are automatically posted to Usenet, > and the ArpaNet (if necessary). > Find someone else to gateway then, BRL is not willing to support a lot of UUCP mail. The NEWS is obtained by a different route than blasting out our phone lines. +Ron
steven@luke.UUCP (Steven List) (06/23/85)
In article <339@gatech.CSNET> spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) writes: >In article <460@mtunh.UUCP> jak@mtunh.UUCP (Jim Kutsch) writes: >>I do not understand why this is of such interest to all those who don't >>read net.ham-radio in the first place!!! > >I'm not claiming that there isn't support for your particular group, [...] >As for others reading our correspondence -- perhaps some of these >issues need to be read and considered by others on the net. Surely you >and I alone are not the ones to decide the fate of this new group, are >we? I'm with Gene. I don't really care particularly about ham radios and such. I do care about the net. Even though we're (I'm) relatively new to the net, we've already run into concerns about the volume of traffic propagated around the world. If criticisms appear about the size of people's SIGNATUREs, why shouldn't we be concerned about passing narrow special-interest traffic around the world? Both a local site and the site to which we feed news have already posted their subscription exclusions because of the amount of traffic. In a related issue I recently corresponded with chuqui@nsc about starting a Plexus User Group group. His response corresponded very closely with Gene's attitude: use a mailing list if the interest group is not large enough to warrant net traffic. I firmly believe in your right to communicate on a subject of interest via the network. The network is a fantastic privilege. With that privilege is responsibility. Should the rest of us incur the cost of communicating information of interest to only a few? I don't have an answer, just a whole bunch of questions. I would like to have more of a feel for how many wish to see your proposed subgroup established before seeing that happen. -- *** * Steven List @ Benetics Corporation, Mt. View, CA * {cdp,greipa,idi,oliveb,sun,tolerant}!bene!luke!steven ***