Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site plus5.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!plus5!hokey From: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Suggestion: article number 0 Message-ID: <779@plus5.UUCP> Date: Sun, 23-Jun-85 11:56:57 EDT Article-I.D.: plus5.779 Posted: Sun Jun 23 11:56:57 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 24-Jun-85 06:20:42 EDT References: <905@sdcsla.UUCP> Reply-To: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey) Organization: Plus Five Computer Services, St. Louis, MO Lines: 41 The concept of permanent articles is a good one, but there are several obstacles to be overcome. It has been discussed before, but never went very far. First, 1 article is not enough. I would think that 10 *should* be, and 100 *better* be, but who can tell? It might be better if we separated the "permanent" articles from the "regular" articles by a mechanism distinct from regular article numbers. Perhaps they could have a leading or trailing "." on them, or have a 0 prepended (e.g.: for a group with 3 permanent articles, the numbers would be 01, 02, and 03). The first article could be a "table of contents" for the current group's permanent articles. Second, there is a problem with transmission. The current default news distribution looks to see of the article is "here". If so, it is not sent "downstream". This means that new sites will not get the permanent articles until they change. Granted, the articles could be posted anew every month (with a small change, to force netwide updates), but that would increase net traffic and prevent users at new sites from seeing the very directions the rest of us want them to see. The second problem should be solved with a "better" mechanism for handling article transmission. The IHAVE/SENDME protocol comes to mind, although the overhead is a bit high. Note, however, that this transmission mechanism would ensure that all the news was distributed properly, and we could avoid all the "I never saw part 3 of Hack" and "garbled" article problems we now have. (It would also be nice if site A could see which newsgroups were fed to it by upstream sites, so folks could see where, for example, net.sources.games was shut off. While I have no objection to sites who shut off news groups, it would be best if their downstream neighbors were actively told about the situation so they could get alternative feeds if they so wished.) To a great extent, solutions to these problems are hampered by the batch nature of UUCP. A replacement for UUCP which would permit "interactive" channels and an overall layered approach to the task of inter-machine communications would be of great help. What ever happened to the stuff written in Australia (a replacement for UUCP)? -- Hokey ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey 314-725-9492