Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!ssbell!mcmi!denny From: denny@mcmi.uucp (Denny Page) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: "Lines:" (Re: Supersedes problems with rapid-fire articles) Message-ID: <1989Sep5.145752.16320@mcmi.uucp> Date: 5 Sep 89 14:57:52 GMT References: <5200@looking.on.ca> <1989Aug30.052459.1166@vicom.com> <1989Aug31.204014.24061@paris.ics.uci.edu> Reply-To: denny@mcmi.UUCP (Denny Page) Organization: MCMI, Omaha, NE Lines: 26 nagel@ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel) writes: >Hmm. So you think it is preferable to have newsreaders around the >world recreate the same information hundreds if not thousands of >times [:-)] than to have the transport system ensure its presence and >creating it if necessary once? Is this not what computers were invented for? :-) Several people have argued that a Bytes header is far more useful than Lines (I myself tend to agree with this... this is the _real_ size of the article, and it could be used for minor verification of munged articles as well), should we add a Bytes header as well as a Lines header? What about a Words header? All are useful for junking articles. If you really want a header that would be useful for rejecting articles, how about a Caps: header containing the percentage of upper case characters? Anything over 15 percent is a flame fest to be avoided at all costs (after all, how much can an extra 8 bytes in every article really cost? :-). Since several people want Lines, several people want Bytes, one person (:-) wants Caps, and hordes of people don't care, why not leave it to the reader? -- Someday has arrived