Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: Causes on the net... (Suggestion to limit traffic) Message-ID: <3218@nsc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 23:27:40 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.3218 Posted: Fri Sep 6 23:27:40 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 04:20:17 EDT References: <205@kepler.UUCP> <774@vortex.UUCP> <2978@sdcc3.UUCP> <198@almsa-1> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: Uncle Chuqui's Lemming Farm Lines: 62 Summary: In article <198@almsa-1> control@almsa-1.UUCP (William Martin) writes: >I really think it is unlikely that any real effort will be made to >install a limit of "number of characters posted per user-ID" or "number >of postings per day per user-ID" or the like, in order to reduce network >traffic. (I recall seeing many such comments over the past years, and >they never inspired anyone to actually implement the idea.) Well, limits on a per-user or a per-site basis can't work unless they are implemented at the posting site (which simply won't be done at the sites that need it most, of course). What can be done is a batching scheme I'm playing with for NNTN (Not Neccessarily The Net), a replacement for USENET I'm fooling with in my copious free time. Currently, batching is done with the F flag, which causes a file to be generated where each line of the file is the filename to a message that needs to be transmitted (/usr/spool/news/net/flame/1134267, for instance). When the batching is done, this file is used to generate the batches in the order of the lines in the file. I'm thinking of changing the batching procedure to include some kind of newsgroup priority. Each newsgroup would have a priority of, say, A-F, set up in some undefined way. When the batching is done, it is done starting with the high (A) priority and working its way down until a specific maximum volume is reached. When that happens, batching stops, and stuff that was of lower priority is simply deferred until the next day. This will put a hard limit on the total amount of volume shipped across over any specific time period while at the same time guaranteeing that the groups of greatest importance get sent. The lower priority groups get deferred until volume slacks off a bit, and if they expire before they get sent out, well, too bad. This gives a site the ability to control its phone bills to a much greater extent than is currently possible, and it allows the stuff the net is really here for to move around while still allowing the 'fun' stuff, space allowing. I would hope, of course, that the net would agree on a priority schedule and size limitations, but the reality is that some sites would change things around to suit themselves and (hopefully) their downstream sites, which si fine by me. If net.games is more important to my site than net.motss, then I bump net.motss down net.games up and net.motss down. This gives an SA a much better excuse for management when asked to justify costs, because the 'secondary' groups only come in when under the limit. It gives you a better chance to budget your phone bill and resources, and depending on the complexity of the priority scheme (I would hope there would be some way for the downstream site to automatically install it on their upstream neighbors) can give you great flexibility. One thing I seriously propose, BTW, is that priority for a given message be set up to be the lowest applicable of the priorities, not the highest. It might also be possible to use this instead of the sys file for turning off groups (and rogue users and sites?) by simpyl defining a special priority '0' to turn it off completely. It looks like a fairly straightforward enhancement of the current system, but I haven't really worked out the details. Feel free to make comments... -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui An uninformed opinion is no opinion at all. If you dont know what you're talking about, please try to do it quietly.