Xref: utzoo news.software.b:1023 comp.mail.uucp:863 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!hao!noao!mcdsun!mcdchg!heiby From: heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) Newsgroups: news.software.b,comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: A Bug in "Supersedes:" and some comments on map handling. Message-ID: <2982@mcdchg.UUCP> Date: 18 Dec 87 16:03:54 GMT References: <339@spectrix.UUCP> Reply-To: heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) Organization: Motorola Microcomputer, Schaumburg, IL Lines: 28 Chris Lewis (clewis@spectrix.UUCP) writes: > Secondly, even without unpacking, having the > articles in the spool area isn't terribly useful either (if you don't > bother unpacking them somehow, what use are they?) The main thing the articles are useful for in the spool area is for being sent on to down-stream sites. If you delete them as soon as they come in and are un-packed, then they aren't around for "sendbatch" to find. Chris makes some interesting observations in his article. I suspect that with some kind of "common sense" test, the map updating could be handled a bit more reasonably than the postings I've seen imply it is. Changes in the entries of some sites have more wide-reaching effects than changes in the entries of others. Some changes have little effect on things, like changing the value of a connection between DEMAND and WEEKLY. But, changing a connection from DEMAND to DEAD may have a much greater effect. It is probably reasonable for map updates to be held until a "large effect" change or some period of time has gone by. Also, in the "monthly posting", it probably is not necessary to post articles that were updated in the last N days, where N is probably something like 10-20. I am concerned about traffic volume. I am also concerned about having my mail routing be as accurate as is practical. Perhaps the map coordinators could say a bit more about their thinking on the trade-offs involved, and their "philosophy". -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Intel architectures build character."