Xref: utzoo news.admin:14583 news.software.b:7891
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!mcs.kent.edu!neoucom.edu!redpoll!red
From: red@redpoll.neoucom.edu (Richard E. Depew)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b
Subject: Re: A way out? re: cnews dumping articles
Summary: post to "to.site"?
Message-ID: <1991May23.020922.18886@redpoll.neoucom.edu>
Date: 23 May 91 02:09:22 GMT
References: <1991May19.035200.879@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca> <1991May21.191941.15498@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991May22.123413.5485@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca>
Organization: Home, Munroe Falls, Ohio
Lines: 40

In article <1991May22.123413.5485@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca> timk@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca (Tim Kuehn) writes:
>In article <1991May21.191941.15498@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>In article <1991May19.035200.879@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca> timk@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca (Tim Kuehn) writes:
>>>How about if a cron script tabulated the type of offenses Cnews found 
>>>over a given period of time (say, a week) and posted a tabulation to 
>>>control, news.lists, or some other group reporting the which sites are
>>>posting broken articles, what they're doing wrong, and how often they're
>>>doing it wrong?
>
>>A reasonable idea for a *few* sites to do.  (We did something along those
>>lines before the software changes were released, in fact, although we
>>did it by mail rather than by news.)  Not so good if it's part of
>>the standard configuration, because the last thing we need is a group
>>with thousands of largely-redundant articles every week.
>
>Ok then, if you need is a mechanism to keep notifications from being too 
>excessive and redundant, limit posts of about sources of offending articles 
>to systems that are *immediate neighbors*. For example, if site "x" fed 
>site "y" and "y" detected bad articles POSTED from (not passing through) 
>"x", it posts a *summary* of the faults found somewhere public, with 
>something more detailed logged to an appropriate file. 
>
>Since most sites talk to a resonably small number of other sites, posts 
>of possible bad articles would be kept to a manageable number as opposed 
>to having all kinds of machines post notes about bad articles being written. 
>The remaining problem is keeping the distribution down to a manageable 
>area so the whole world doesn't hear that your neighbor is posting bad 
>articles.

     Isn't this a good use for the "to.neighbor" newsgroups?  Each
summary or list would then be posted on only two machines, the notifying
site and the neighboring site.  It could even be made a part of the
standard configuration without danger of flooding the net with these
warnings.

Dick Depew
-- 
Richard E. Depew                     uunet!aablue!{redpoll,neoucom}!red
Munroe Falls, OH.                    red@redpoll.neoucom.edu (home)
NEOUCOM, Rootstown, OH.              red@uhura.neoucom.edu (work)