Xref: utzoo news.admin:12463 news.software.b:6987 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!stiatl!bagend!slammer!nyet!pete From: pete@nyet.UUCP (Pete Hardie) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b Subject: Re: What to do about humongous postings Message-ID: <580@nyet.UUCP> Date: 28 Feb 91 03:12:50 GMT References: Organization: The Order of Seekers For Truth and Pentinence Lines: 32 In article mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: >Single messages longer than a certain length (to be decided) which appear in >any newsgroups should be dropped, and mail sent to the originator. Personally >I can't think of any reason for single messages of more than (say) 128K in >a discussion group, or even in a binaries group for that matter. I'd probably >support a limit of about 32K for discussion groups. I would prefer to see some form of limit arranged between feeds, incorporated into the UUCP/news software, such that I could get with my feed site and say: (my machine, my_sys) my_sys:MAX_FILE_SIZE = 32K his_sys:MAX_FILE_SIZE = 64K (feed machine, his_sys) my_sys:MAX_FILE_SIZE = 32K his_sys:MAX_FILE_SIZE = 64K Thus, it would find the size of the articles, and not queue up those that exceed the limit, marking them as skipped. This would allow the sites with megadisks pass on whatever is posted, but those of us with microdisks need never see the monster articles. It also prevents problems with trying to centralize the control, and update it, and so on. -- Pete Hardie mail: ...!emory!stiatl!slammer!nyet!pete "Well, Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, And Lightness has a call that's hard to hear" -- Indigo Girls