Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
> Well the grandson-of-1036 now in draft form would take a dim view of
> such a practice. It will say that news articles of arbitrary length
> SHOULD be propagated, with a NOTE to the effect that people thinking
> of imposing limits should be thinking in terms of several megabytes.
There's a difference between propagating and presenting to readers. I
know of a number of <1MB limited news servers, and even the transit
server I run (ok, it's not major, but is usually around Freenix #500)
limits at 512kB. Its companion reader server limits at 256kB, and I've
never heard a complaint about it.
And these limits *do* impact me directly. I'm the head moderator for
rec.arts.anime.creative, and we quite often have posts which exceed
256kB and consequently get split up. The heuristic we follow is to stay
under 64kB where possible, and don't go much above 200kB ever. Between
there it's a balancing act between number and size of parts.
On the small in servers and (arguably) large in users subset of the news
system that carry "full" feeds or sizeable parts of the binary groups
the limits may not be relevant, but for those of us still running more
peripheral, or even just non-binary servers, the limits are very real.
Even just as a user, I'd rather not be sucking down multi-megabyte files
off of a news server, as it can be a significant chunk of time to do so.
Brian. (author of many faqs, moderator of many newsgroups, and admin of
a few news servers)
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here
*************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved