Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!uthub!ecf!me!utradio!utmanitou!lsuc!mnetor!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!lll-lcc!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!killer!elg
From: elg@killer.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm,news.groups
Subject: Re: Mark Rinfret's Postings of source code!!!!!
Message-ID: <929@killer.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-May-87 23:49:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: killer.929
Posted: Mon May 25 23:49:20 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 31-May-87 08:36:47 EDT
References: <1947@rutgers.rutgers.edu>
Organization: The Unix(tm) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 55
Xref: utgpu comp.sys.cbm:429 news.groups:826

in article <1947@rutgers.rutgers.edu>, prindle@nadc says:
> 
> From: prindle@NADC
> 
> This posting of *long* assembly programs has to stop.  Disks runneth
> over, phone bills surely soareth.  The proper procedure for posting of long
> sources is to post them to net.sources or mod.sources so that they may be
> archived only where sufficient disk space exists.  Having them sent out to
> every Tom/Dick/Harry on the distribution list is grossly inefficient and
> violates basic net etiquette.

BULLSH*T!!!!

FIRST of all, there IS no "net.sources" or "mod.sources" on USENET. There is a
"comp.sources.unix" and a "comp.sources", both of which are moderated.

SECOND of all, there is NOTHING in the USENET etiquette against posting to a
newsgroup. comp.sys.amiga gets a LOT of source postings -- people have posted
shell programs, RAM-disk handlers, demos on various topics, a gadget-handler
thingy, and other such stuff. 

THIRD of all, ALL sources on USENET are broadcast to ALL machines on USENET --
no matter WHAT group they are posted to. Thus it uses the same amount of disk
space to post to comp.sources, as to post to comp.sys.cbm.  And it is just as
efficient, too. 

True, comp.sources and comp.sources.unix are archived. However, I doubt that
the archiving people are really very interested in sources for a Commodore 64
-- not exactly your Unix kind of stuff! 

>  Typical comp.sys.cbm monthly traffic is
> about 60000 bytes; traffic for May 87 has already surpassed 1/2 Megabyte!

Which is typical for the more popular USENET groups, such as comp.sys.amiga,
comp.unix.wizards, etc. 

> Sincerely,
> Frank Prindle
> Prindle@NADC.arpa

   AHAH! We discover the problem! He's on ARPA! Well, sorry. Maybe you should
lobby the Internet folks for a more efficient way of recieving your news,
besides them EMAILing it to you?  In any event, it's an ARPA problem, not a
USENET problem. Considering the sheer volume of postings on USENET, I really
don't see any reason for USENET to gateway to ARPA anyhow.  It just raises
phonebills by that amount, without any appreciable gain (since most of the
ARPA material is distributed as DIGESTS, which are impossible for USENET news
readers to efficiently deal with -- I unsubscribed from SEVERAL groups because
of that problem). 

--
Eric Green   elg%usl.CSNET     CS student, University of SW Louisiana
{cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg      Apprentice Haquer, Bayou Telecommunications
Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191      BBS phone #: 318-984-3854  300/1200 baud
Lafayette, LA 70509            I disclaim my existence, and yours, too.