Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!iuvax!bobmon
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Source ARCs are inappropriate!
Summary: c.b.i.p. isn't that unconnected...
Message-ID: <14707@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 3 Nov 88 20:56:49 GMT
References: <7119@dasys1.UUCP> <4457@bsu-cs.UUCP> <7194@dasys1.UUCP> <1314@mtunb.ATT.COM> <7341@dasys1.UUCP>
Reply-To: bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante)
Organization: malkaryotic
Lines: 27

tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>	[lotsa stuff; then...]
>
> * Missed sections and repost requests are a fact of life, especially
>   in groups like c.b.i.p. whose connectivity sucks because of the high
>   volume-to-interest ratio.

I see far more repost-requests in the various source groups (or
source.d groups) than I do for c.b.i.p; also, the monthly readership
analyses consistently put c.b.i.p quite high in terms of distribution,
readership, and by implication interest.  

Let me offer the following quibble w.r.t. the repostings issue:
Consider a program containing 80K of source files.  If shar'ed, this
program will have to be sent as two postings to satisfy the limitations
of some of the net's mailers.  If yer-favorite-archiver can knock it
down by 60%, and uuencode takes that back up by 125%, the result is
60K -- just small enough to go out as one posting.  So the chances of
needing a repost of a part are worse with the shar'ing, simply because
there are more parts running around.

>Here endeth the polemic.  :-)
	I think the only way net.discussions end is by being eclipsed
	by newer & flamier topics  :-)
-- 
--    bob,mon			(bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)
--    "Aristotle was not Belgian..."	- A Fish Called Wanda