Xref: utzoo news.software.b:8164 news.admin:15022
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!corton!mirsa!sibelius.inria.fr!weigl
From: weigl@sibelius.inria.fr (Konrad Weigl)
Newsgroups: news.software.b,news.admin
Subject: Re: Cnews "dropped article" Notifications - another proposal
Message-ID: <11663@mirsa.inria.fr>
Date: 7 Jun 91 11:19:33 GMT
References: <1991Jun4.161440.4161@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca>
Sender: news@mirsa.inria.fr
Followup-To: news.software.b
Organization: INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis (Fr)
Lines: 29
Nntp-Posting-Host: sibelius.inria.fr

In article <1991Jun4.161440.4161@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca>, timk@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca (Tim Kuehn) writes:
>posting a list of bad articles 
> to a newsgroup. This falls down when you consider that some sites with a 
> wide fan-out before hitting a current patchlevel Cnews site(s) could 
> theoretically find themselves bombarded with email or the newsgroup flooded
> with notifications. This is not good. 

I am no *pro* in this field, but if a site identifying a bad article would first
read the newsgroup before anything else is done, there would be no problem:
If the article is posted already, no further reaction, else:

Any site finding an unreported bad article informs source & posts simultaneously.

Am I missing something?

Instead of a newsgroup with a wide fan-out & lots of traffic a centralized location 
plus backup-site might be more efficient as keeper of the "bad-article found&reported-file":

You'd only have traffic for specific mail inquiries ("Is article Nr XXX in file?") plus
return, instead of undifferentiated newsgroup dissemination as soon as a new badly-formatted
article crops up.

Konrad Weigl               Tel. (France) 93 65 78 63
Projet Pastis              Fax  (France) 93 65 78 58
INRIA-Sophia Antipolis     email weigl@mirsa.inria.fr
2004 Route des Lucioles    
B.P. 109
06561 Valbonne Cedex
France