Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!phil
From: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: net.news.adm,net.news.sa
Subject: Re: did posting the uucp map cause any problems?
Message-ID: <615@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 21:12:08 EST
Article-I.D.: amdcad.615
Posted: Tue Feb  5 21:12:08 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Feb-85 02:01:13 EST
References: <812@cbosgd.UUCP> <924@dual.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AMDCAD, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 30
Xref: utcs net.news.adm:253 net.news.sa:97

> our problems for the short term, but let's face it: the volume of news
> is growing, and not all of it is due to the massive postings of maps
> and sources...
> 
> 	another voice in the wilderness crying for moderation,
> 
> 	Erik E. Fair	ucbvax!fair	fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA

Consider this yet another voice in favor of moderation. One theory
I have is that many of the people against moderation are those who,
shall we say, are not doing their share in making the network run,
people on leaf sites and such. Most of the people I know with more
than one news feed, (especially myself) think the load is getting
to the point where moderation or some other way of controlling the
volume is going to be required. Whether the users think it's ok or
not is really not to the point, the increasing strain *will* require
a change and it's just a matter of chosing the least distasteful
alternative.

I heard one guy say that to control growth we should just not let
new sites on the network. I am totally against such an attitude.
"I have mine and if you can't get any, too bad." Such methods are
much worse than moderation, in my opinion.

-- 
 This is my opinion, I guess.

 Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA