Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!mcdchg!ddsw1!karl From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: List of sites with broken Followup (No References) Software Summary: It's not useless, just less useful Message-ID: <3451@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Date: 11 May 89 18:13:12 GMT References: <3222@looking.UUCP> <29126@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <3229@looking.UUCP> Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL Lines: 109 In article <3229@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Many people have responded to tell me the reasons for bad References lines. >Such reasons include: > Gatewayed mailing lists > mail aliases that post news > Manual deletion of the references line by the user > >I understand and already knew about these reasons. They are not the point. >We either have to fix almost all the problems, or the References line is >useless and might as well be scrapped. I disagree with this. The References line IS very useful. No, it's not perfect, but it is useful. Without it AKCSNet's linkage (threading) wouldn't work at all, and neither would any "hypernews" project. >We are spending many megabytes storing and shipping these lines after all. As we do shipping your and my signature files.... which contain NO information that is necessary to the content of the discussion at hand...... That's a rhetorical and sarcastic response, yes, but the reason should be obvious. We can't even stop people from using 10-line signatures...... >Gateways of mailing lists & moderated groups can be tolerated to a degree, >because they limit the problem to a single group. Other problems can't >be tolerated. If that means shutting off mail->news gateways, that's what >it means. You'll never succeed in this... ...... >Any plans for a hypertext-like system have to be scrapped. Such plans were >the motive for News 3.0, for example. They don't have to be scrapped, but people do have to realize that it's not perfect. We had a nice education job to do here when we implemented AKCSNet linkage with Usenet, since we often end up with split discussions for just this reason. People didn't understand why threads were getting split up in the gated groups. We had to explain the reasons. Now the users simply accept that it isn't perfect, and CANT BE given the wide variety of the network sites, imperfect software, and the anarchy that Usenet is. They deal with it. I deal with it. I read many newsgroups in AKCSNet, because it does attempt to organize things, and does a darn sight better job of it than the Usenet software does. So what if it's not perfect? That's the nature of the beast! >So I think we may have to do the following: Define "we". Certainly you don't think you're really going to impose this on 10,000 administrators, do you? > a) No mail->news gateways. You wanna post, get some posting > software on your machine. It's only fair if you're going to > post to 10,000 machines. Why not? That immediately invalidates 100% of the mailing lists that end up as newsgroups. > b) Otherwise get some very smart gateway software that can figure > out a references line That's going to be quite a trick from the mail gates that I have seen. Now they have to keep message id <> article ID pairs around ad nauseum. > c) Posting software should detect when the References line has been > edited out of a posting, and re-insert a shortened line that at > least includes the ultimate parent (original article) and the > immediate parent. This one I have a problem with. If your hypernews software is so smart, it should be able to figure out what's going on with just the ultimate parent. After all, that is all that is REALLY required, as the rest is quite irrelavent. You see, you can't really rethread things accurately at a distant site regardless of how hard you try -- the multiple paths that news takes insures that this is impossible. (Ie: you can't guarantee that your idea of the "order" of responses is the "right" one, in fact, there IS no "right" ordering. It's all a matter of perspective, and that changes site-by-site.) Besides, if the header has been edited out, how do you propose that the posting software reconstruct it? The very information it needs to perform this task is _gone_. > d) Non-unix sites running new software must be required to adhere to > the standard. How do you propose to do this? I doubt you'll get people to cut their neighbors for this kind of reason, and I doubt that you'll get most people to "fix" their software if it is broken either. You see, all this costs money (ie: investment of some kind), and most of the net runs on volunteer time. Thus, you and I and everyone else HAS to put up with the imperfect nature of this beast we call Usenet. >Or give up. Which would be sad. On forcing people to "conform"? That's reality in this format. You can't force people to comply when there is no policing power, or any organizational standard. Give it up. You can apply diplomatic pressure, but I bet many people will tell you to "stuff" when it comes down to brass tacks. Usenet simply isn't an entity you or anyone else can police. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"