Hmmm.. Disk space problems ? This is Netcom right ????
# 2. Additionally discriminate, via early expiration, against any article
# cross-posted to more than a threshold number of newsgroups (four was
# the threshold mentioned).
Way to low. This is counter productive as people who regularly post to a
few more will be forced to post twice (or more) if this policy takes hold
other places. This will cause more copies of the same article to be present
in their spool directory at the same time. This is totally counterproductive
to what seems to be the reason for #1.
# The stated reason for making these changes is to reduce spool area
# consumption by (improperly) crossposted binaries and widely-crossposted
# flamefests.
If they're telling you this then they may not be thinking it through (or maybe
I'm not...). Crossposting is normally implemented using links" to a single
copy. If they institute the crossposting limit, those that want to be seen
in 10 groups will post 10 copies. A crossposted copy would only take up
1/10th the space... And disk space is what, $200 US a Gigabyte ? And this
is Netcom, right ? Sounds like a PR nightmare in the making.
# However, the changes will pretty much destroy the ability
# of FAQs to persist in the local spool between postings: not only will
# a long expire time for news.answers not help (not that they ever had
# one at netcom) but rule #2 will target any FAQ with more than one
# home newsgroup. I have not seen the implementation, but I imagine that
# application of rule #2 would override any Expires: header in the article.
The reality is that there are many sites today that have had short expire
periods for years. This will not be a benefit for Netcom users and it
might be interesting to see what the competition does to exploit this kind
of stupid PR blunder.
# I haven't had much success persuading the newsadmins that articles
# cross-posted to news.answers ought to be exempted from these policies.
#
# What bothers me most about the situation is that the admins seem to think
# that *most* sites are implementing policies like this, or soon will.
# Apparently these ideas are fairly generally accepted in the news.admin
# newsgroups (which I have not kept up on for a long time).
Nor I but I find it the mentality understandable for an ISP allowing unlimited
access. Keep them articles moving so people don't waste time online... Just
connect up, download your mail and spooled news and drop offline, clearing the
modem for another paying customer... They make less when you are online for
a long time.
Looks as if they would like to go back towards the UUCP net days...
# So, if you think that well-run sites are likely to be keeping FAQs around
# for the stated expiration interval, think again. One-day expiration may
# soon be the norm.
No. I don't think so. If people can't read news and the followups to the
messages they post, people will find a news site that will. Sorry but I
see this stupidity as an opportunity for some smart ISP to take advantage
of this. May be near time to vote with your feet and go somewhere else...
# Is there anything that FAQ authors as a group can or should do about this?
A mail campaign might start some talk but it still comes down to the core
of Usenet. This is an anarchy in which they own their resources and they
decide what it is that they do with them. We can apply pressure by making
the change in policy known but it is their resources to ultimately do with
as they please.
# Or should we just accept it as life in the nineties, and revise our own
# working habits to fit within such policies? Maybe the crosspost policies
# for news.answers need to be rethought.
It really has been life on Usenet for as long as I can remember. Some sites
have long expire times on groups, some have reasonable ones while some do not
honor any Expires: headers and force expires the first, second or third day.
I'm not sure that I agree that this is becoming the norm. This is the first
real ISP I've heard of doing this. Do their customers know and understand
what this means to them ? Somehow I doubt it. Maybe they should be educated
as to what this policy will do to the resources they are paying for...
I wonder if the Marketing department knows what the Technology service
department has in mind. Quite often you need to assure that the right
hand knows what the left hand is doing. If they don't, maybe you can
convince the Marketeers that this could be a PR nightmare that they may
not need or want.
I don't think there is enough evidence that this is a trend. I don't think
there is any real reason to change anything we do or how we do it yet.
FWIW...
-- Kent Landfield Phone: 1-817-545-2502 The Landfield Group FAX: 1-817-545-7650 Email: kent@landfield.com http://www.landfield.com/ Please send comp.sources.misc related mail to kent@uunet.uu.net. Search the Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive at http://www.landfield.com/faqs/
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved