Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc,news.stargate,news.sysadmin,news.admin
Subject: Re: EndOfSourcesList+AnnouncementOfNetOmbudsman
Message-ID: <2697@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: Tue, 30-Jun-87 09:54:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.2697
Posted: Tue Jun 30 09:54:04 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jul-87 05:44:34 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <15982@gatech.gatech.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 16
Keywords: solving the moderation bottleneck?  Ha!
Xref: mnetor news.groups:1104 news.misc:654 news.stargate:208 news.sysadmin:252 news.admin:572

Those who mourn for "USENET like it was" should remember the original design
estimates of maximum traffic volume:  two articles a day, from 75-100 sites.
(I should know -- those were my numbers, which is why I'm not a traffic
forecaster today.)  Historically, the evolution of USENET has been driven
by one factor and one factor only:  vast increases in the amount of traffic.
For example, netnews B came about primarily because netnews A kept only a
high-water mark of the last article read in sequence, not even separated by
newsgroup.  That didn't work when traffic reached 15 articles a day!

I'm too far removed from the current wars to recommend for or against any
particular solution, be it more moderation or more anarchy.  I do suggest,
though, that people remember that yesterday's answers may not fit today's
questions.

		--Steve Bellovin
		ulysses!smb