Path: utzoo!utstat!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!gvlv2!gvlf1-c!markw From: markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: C news and bogus distributions (e.g. Dist: comp) Message-ID: <1020@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM> Date: 22 Oct 90 04:00:28 GMT References: <1990Oct11.210812.19392@zoo.toronto.edu> Sender: news@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM Reply-To: markw@GVL.Unisys.Com (Mark H. Weber) Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa Lines: 97 In article <1990Oct11.210812.19392@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article pst@ack.Stanford.EDU (Paul Traina) writes: >>For a while, I was doing negative distribtions along the lines of: >> >>kink.com:alt.sex.bondage/all,!local,!csd,!sdc,!su,!ba:l: >> >>But this is bogus... > >We've generally got a low opinion of people who generate (or whose software >generates) bogus distributions, and can't get too excited about maximizing >propagation of such articles. > Rats! I thought I had distributions figured out, and that entries like "comp" and "alt" were annoying, but not technically bogus. Here's what I based my understanding on (extracted from an article by David Lawrence): | |> I have a question on the proper entries for the Distribution header. | |Ok. First there should be a common definition for what the |Distribution header means. This is provided by RFC 1036. | |RFC> 2.2.7. Distribution |RFC> |RFC> This line is used to alter the distribution scope of the message. |RFC> It is a comma separated list similar to the "Newsgroups" line. User |RFC> subscriptions are still controlled by "Newsgroups", but the message |RFC> is sent to all systems subscribing to the newsgroups on the |RFC> "Distribution" line in addition to the "Newsgroups" line. For the |RFC> message to be transmitted, the receiving site must normally receive |RFC> one of the specified newsgroups AND must receive one of the |RFC> specified distributions. Thus, a message concerning a car for sale |RFC> in New Jersey might have headers including: |RFC> |RFC> Newsgroups: rec.auto,misc.forsale |RFC> Distribution: nj,ny |RFC> |RFC> so that it would only go to persons subscribing to rec.auto or misc. |RFC> for sale within New Jersey or New York. The intent of this header |RFC> is to restrict the distribution of a newsgroup further, not to |RFC> increase it. A local newsgroup, such as nj.crazy-eddie, will |RFC> probably not be propagated by hosts outside New Jersey that do not |RFC> show such a newsgroup as valid. A follow-up message should default |RFC> to the same "Distribution" line as the original message, but the |RFC> user can change it to a more limited one, or escalate the |RFC> distribution if it was originally restricted and a more widely |RFC> distributed reply is appropriate. | |> As I understand it, the Distribution header is to limit the distribution |> of an article to some logical or geographically related set of machines. | |Right. But note especially the words, 'sent to all systems subscribing |to the newsgroups on the "Distribution" line'. | |> Are Distribution: entries of comp, rec, sci etc bogus? | |No. | It appears to me that the source of the confusion regarding the use of this header is the very definition of the header itself. Does anyone know what intent the original framer(s) of RFC 1036 had when they introduced the concept of newsgroup hierarchy names on the "Distribution: " line? Was this done simply because the format of the B news sys file was considered to be frozen, and the newsgroups and distributions had to share the same field? Now that C news is catching on, with it's modified sys file format, is there any effort underway to revise RFC 1036 to separate the newsgroup and distribution definitions? Anyone who is working on this, please contact me via email. A truly functional system of distributions for netnews could greatly reduce the volume of world-wide postings. Many question-and-answer type newsgroups could be successful as limited distribution groups. Why does a question need to be posted to the entire world, when there is probably someone nearby who has the answer? Some help from newsreader software would be needed for this to be effective, also. If I could set my newsreader to only show me articles that were posted in a specific distribution, and post by default to that same distribution, then I could easily set the "focus" of my newsviewer to be as narrow or as wide as I wanted. As a site administrator, I could set my default distribution for new users to be fairly local, and then let them discover the larger world for themselves. Current newsreader software does not appear to have this capacity (please correct me if I am wrong), and even if it did, the lack of a functional distribution mechanism would hamper its effectiveness. Yes, there are many "broken" sites out there, and B news will be with us for some time to come. But before we can eliminate these "broken" headers, we need a clear idea of what we would change them to. These changes can then be applied such that any re-writing of the Distribution: header lines can be done in a uniform fashion. -- Mark H. Weber | Internet: markw@GVL.Unisys.COM Unisys - Great Valley Labs | UUCP: ...!uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!markw Paoli, PA USA (215) 648-7111 | ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw