Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!decvax!bellcore!vortex!lauren From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: fa -> mod discussion (LONG!) Message-ID: <831@vortex.UUCP> Date: Sun, 6-Oct-85 20:44:28 EDT Article-I.D.: vortex.831 Posted: Sun Oct 6 20:44:28 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Oct-85 04:12:04 EDT References: <10542@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles Lines: 121 OK. Let's try again. I really didn't need Fair's lengthy tutorial on newsgroups, since I know this stuff about as well as anyone, but obviously he didn't understand my objections. This is a long message. Be warned. --- The fa groups, by definition, are FROM ARPA. They are usually viewed, quite properly, as ONE-WAY groups. While people sometimes do followup to them, this practice is not widespread and these groups are generally viewed as one-way conduits into Usenet. When people want to reply to materials in these groups, they usually use direct mail through a gateway to reach the ARPA moderator, who then inserts the message into the next outgoing digest, or delayed mail distribution, or whatever. The message flows back into Usenet from ARPA. Moving the fa groups to mod groups causes an immediate problem. There is no distinction between mod groups that are totally Usenet based and mod.* groups that are one-way tied to certain ARPA lists (that is, the "former" fa groups). At least with the fa label, people are discouraged from using those groups as "normal" newsgroups in the sense that carrying on a great deal of followups tends to be discouraged. People usually know that they should send their replies to the ARPA moderator directly, so that the discussions will make sense on both networks. Now, the proposal to change fa to mod blurs this distinction. People will start seeing those new mod groups as "ordinary" mod newsgroups, and most people will tend to make their postings directly to the appropriate Usenet mod group moderator. If the moderator simply sends those messages out to Usenet, as they would for any other mod group, two problems appear: 1) Discussion will get widely out of sync. You think it's bad now? Just wait. The ARPA side, which in most cases (under this new scenario) wouldn't see the messages that were sent to the Usenet moderator and distributed only to Usenet, would be carrying on its own independent discussion, while the Usenet side would see that ARPA discussion but would also be carrying on its own many followups through un-gatewayed messages. Long after an issue has been "settled" (so to speak) on Usenet, the ARPA list may be continuing to discuss old topics, oblivious to the Usenet-generated messages that they never saw. The problem is that by changing the fa to mod you encourage the use of the new mod groups like any other mod groups, BUT if these groups are NOT being gatewayed into ARPA the ARPA material feeding into those same groups will diverge and tend toward greater and greater confusion in the one "combined" mod group that is handling both types of traffic (Usenet-only and ARPA-one-way). 2) Since many persons with access to both ARPA and Usenet will be aware of problem (1), and won't want to miss the Usenet-only discussions that aren't appearing on the ARPA side, they will be forced to start taking the entire new mod groups simply to make sure they see the Usenet discussions being posted to that group. Right now (in "fa" mode) these missed messages are relatively few in number, but once the fa designation is gone and people start mailing to the Usenet moderator instead of mailing to the ARPA moderator, the number of missed messages will be MUCH higher. The mere changing of fa to mod will tend to make people forget the posting distinction and virtually assure that these sorts of problems will appear (that is, more and more messages that only appear on the Usenet side). Right now, a considerable load on Usenet is avoided by the ARPA/Usenet sites that take the ARPA lists directly rather than by tying up phone lines and running up phone bills getting those (often voluminous) materials from Usenet ("fa") feeds. But once the volume of messages that can't be seen on the ARPA side increases, many sites will be forced to start taking the mod groups via dialup to avoid missing major (Usenet- origin) parts of ongoing discussions. This is going to cost significant money for the sites paying the bills and will increase Usenet congestion as well. Higher bills and more congestion are things we could do without right now! --- I see several possible ways out. In no particular order, they are: 1) Leave things the way they are. Don't change fa to mod. If it's not really broken, don't try fix it. 2a) Change the fa groups to mod groups, but post the ARPA-origin messages in a subgroup of these mod groups (e.g. mod.foo.fa). This would allow ARPA/Usenet sites to take the ARPA volume directly from ARPA, but still subscribe to the "Usenet-only" portion of the material via Usenet without being forced to take the ARPA materials from Usenet as well. 2b) Do (2a), but also make it a requirement that the Usenet moderator send Usenet-origin messages to the ARPA moderator on a timely basis (this may often be slower than the current technique of users mailing their replies directly to the ARPA moderator, unfortunately). This will tend to avoid the discussion schism effect between the two networks that I discussed earlier. A potential problem with this technique is that messages that have already appeared in the Usenet-origin feed will reappear in the ARPA subgroups later after being processed by the ARPA moderator. However, this problem can be fairly easily solved. Since the materials from ARPA are generally broken up into individual messages (when they aren't already) before being sent into Usenet, the moderator (or appropriate software) could avoid reposting materials to the ARPA-subgroup which had already appeared in the Usenet-origin group. 3) Usenet users send all their messages for the former fa group to the Usenet moderator, who has the responsibility of forwarding it correctly into ARPA. The Usenet moderator doesn't do a direct feed, but the messages come back in the ARPA traffic. There will be some latency in comparison with users mailing directly to the ARPA moderator in some cases, but given the overall latency of Usenet this doesn't appear very serious. I hope this long message has helped to clarify the problems that can occur if a group starts seeing large volumes of Usenet-origin AND ARPA-origin traffic in a single group without adequate gatewaying or separation regarding point-of-origin. The effects of increased costs and even more schismed discussions are real and very likely to occur unless this situation is handled with care. --Lauren--