Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!epiwrl!epimass!jbuck From: jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: What to do with unknown newsgroups. Message-ID: <979@epimass.UUCP> Date: Mon, 16-Mar-87 14:51:50 EST Article-I.D.: epimass.979 Posted: Mon Mar 16 14:51:50 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 17-Mar-87 03:09:17 EST References: <43152@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> Reply-To: jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA Lines: 62 Summary: 2.11 behavior is preferable to 2.10.x behavior Sorry this is so long, but I think a detailed discussion is needed. In article <43152@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: >Currently, 2.11 news goes to great pains to keep unknown newsgroups >on the Newsgroups line, but not localize them. This has caused many >people to change their mind and claim that this is really wrong. I think it's right. The standards document said this was how news was supposed to behave; 2.11 is the first one to get this right. It's now less critical for every non-leaf site to have a correct active file; either the article will be rejected (and possibly flow around the bad site) or the Newsgroups line will be left alone. For example, let's say site "hao" (for example) decides not to accept talk groups. Under 2.10.x, to avoid trashing the Newsgroups line on cross-posted articles, they'd have to maintain a line in active, and a directory, for all the talk groups. Local readers (including the manager who ordered "talk" to be cut off) could still read the talk groups, though only cross-posted articles would be present. The alternative (Unknown group talk.philosophy.misc removed) would be to ruin the Newsgroups line, since the article may eventually get to a part of the network where talk exists. Under the new regime, hao can simply remove the talk groups. No hassle. The sys admin doesn't have to keep track of "talk" group creations and deletions, and other sites don't get mad at them. >A favorite example is somthing posted to misc.jobs,ut.jobs from >ut-sally ending up in the "local" ut jobs group at U of Toronto. Hmm. Well, nothing's perfect. The problem is that there's no way to say that the two ut.jobs groups are different. What if the two groups were "sci.math,talk.philosophy.misc" (this has been a fairly common cross-posting at times)? Then this is exactly the behavior you want. Go back and read Mark Horton's document (in the doc directory with the 2.11 distribution). He explains this point. One solution that's sure to make everyone scream: make all distributions unique. But it's too late for that. >Does anyone still think that the unknown groups should be preserved or >should a future patch remove the unknown newsgroups? I think it's more critical than ever (with overloaded backbone sites dropping whole categories of groups) that the current 2.11 behavior be preserved. I think the new approach causes fewer problems than the old approach. Another point. Say you're a leaf site (or otherwise totally dependent on a single upstream site, though you may feed others) and the upstream administrator has a missing group. Under 2.10.x the upstream site strips names; you have no idea anything's wrong. Under 2.11 the name of the new group is there, in cross-postings. You get messages in the log file about it (unknown group not localized) so you can ask the upstream administrator what is going on. -- - Joe Buck {hplabs,ihnp4,sun,ames}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck seismo!epiwrl!epimass!jbuck {pesnta,tymix,apple}!epimass!jbuck Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California