Xref: utzoo news.misc:1137 news.config:426
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!gatech!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!s.cc.purdue.edu!rsk
From: rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.misc,news.config
Subject: Re: The USENET Backbone (Last changed: 10 December 1987)
Message-ID: <1954@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 16 Jan 88 23:36:16 GMT
References: <2802@arthur.cs.purdue.edu> <14191@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> <19508@clyde.ATT.COM> <5202@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Reply-To: rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Quick-Frozen Wombat)
Organization: Purdue Computing Center Unix Systems Staff
Lines: 16
Posted: Sat Jan 16 18:36:16 1988

In article <5202@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> mangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Don Speck) writes:
(discussing the topology of the NNTP news-forwarding service)
>I think backbone sites should be judged by the quality of their service,
>not the quantity of their feeds.

Don, I agree with you, but how can one quantify the quality of the service?
Now, you and I (and perhaps some other people) might agree that if a site
provides services X, Y, and Z in a reliable manner, that the site in question
is of sufficient value to the network to be considered a backbone site; but
what do we do if other people disagree with us (and someone inevitably will)?

I'm not knocking your proposal (at least I'm not trying to); I'm just trying
to figure out how it could be made independent of the opinions of a few people.

Cheers,
Rich