Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!ames!xanth!ukma!david
From: david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae)
Newsgroups: news.software.nntp
Subject: Re: Streaming NNTP
Message-ID: <11855@s.ms.uky.edu>
Date: 8 Jun 89 16:36:51 GMT
References: <42723@oliveb.olivetti.com>
Reply-To: david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae)
Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 30

I've recently had similar thoughts but hadn't thought them beyond:

	extend IHAVE to include a whole list of MID's
		sender telling receiver some of the messages sender has to send
	extend SENDME to  "     "   "    "    "  "
		receiver telling sender what messages of the previous list
		it would like to receive.

Then once the servers have negotiated a list of MID's to send the
sender sends each one as "normal".

Here we've got bunches of NNTP links.  Our sequent does a real fine
job of doing lots of things ... so we tend to be free and easy about
making NNTP links, and we also make connection attempts every 10 minutes
or so.  But we get widely variable times that the connections last,
*and* often have lots of nntpxmit's in the background.

It's pretty useful that the nntpxmits usually are throttled back by the
network.  The systems guy here makes rude noises on occasion when he
sees all those nntpxmits hanging around -- but then he just likes to
make rude noises.

If the nntpxmits were to only do quickies (see, they would get in and 
out quickly ... ) there wouldn't be as many hanging around anymore.
But each one would put greater load on the system.
-- 
<- David Herron; an MMDF guy                              <david@ms.uky.edu>
<- ska: David le casse\*'      {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<-
<- New word for the day: Obnoxity -- an act of obnoxiousness