Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.toronto.edu!ietf-nntp-distribution-owner
Message-ID: <McNgLJq6f0955ctMIi@turbo.bio.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1991 00:25:57 -0400
From: lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot)
Original-To: sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber)
Subject: Re: compression methods
Original-Cc: ietf-nntp@turbo.bio.net
References: <9106250011.AA25533@tmc.edu>
References: <9106250011.AA25533@tmc.edu>
Newsgroups: list.ietf-nntp
Distribution: list
Sender: list-admin@cs.toronto.edu
Approved: list.ietf-nntp@mail.cs.toronto.edu
Lines:       21


Let me take up both sides of this issue.

For Compression:

It saves money if you're unfortunate enough to have to pay usage
sensitive rates.  My understanding is that this is the case for certain
transatlantic rates, and it places like Korea.

Compression might be only a variant of IMAGE for some implementations if
they store articles in compressed form (TMNN comes to mind; does CNEWS
allow articles to live on the disk in compressed form?).

Against compression:

It adds overhead and it requires a name registry, and it adds a little
bit of hair into the implementations.

Comments?
Eliot Lear
[lear@turbo.bio.net]