Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!chuq
From: chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: net.sources.bugs,net.news,net.news.adm
Subject: Re: A proposal for a consistent REPOST scheme
Message-ID: <3192@sun.uucp>
Date: Sat, 25-Jan-86 00:23:47 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.3192
Posted: Sat Jan 25 00:23:47 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jan-86 05:16:20 EST
References: <3473@glacier.ARPA>
Organization: Third Person, Omniscient
Lines: 39
Xref: watmath net.sources.bugs:655 net.news:4553 net.news.adm:496

> There was an analysis by Chuq von Rospach about a year ago that showed that
> it was cheaper (in terms of cost to the net) to post something instead of
> mailing it if it is going to go to more than 15 or 20 people. 

Brian Dropped a zero. I played with some numbers about 6 months ago and came
up with a break-even point of about 120-200 people (what I was looking at was
when a mailing list became large enough to be cheaper to the net as a
moderated group).


Actually, reposts are quite simple. The algorithm I've used for years is:

    if (I need something)
    {
	ask the net to tell me if they have it but not to send it immediately;
	if (I get multiple replies) 
	{
	    ask the first or closest for a copy
	    thank the rest
	} else /* I get one reply */ {
	    ask for a copy
	}
	if (I get a few requests for it [<5-10])
	{
	    mail out copies
	} else {
	    repost
	}

I've never been inundated by copies that way, and the control of the
posting remains in a single source -- the original requestor. You don't
end up with 99 people posting a version of shar to the net, and everyone
is happy.

-- 
:From catacombs of Castle Tarot:        Chuq Von Rospach 
sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM                 {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq

It's not looking, it's heat seeking.