HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: who pays for USENET
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:04:53 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Sep27.092816.21637@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:

>>doesn't mean the cost isn't there.  I'm not going to be able to look
>>at my paycheck and say "hey, this would have been $1 more if we didn't
>>have Usenet" (the way I can with utilities) because it's lost in the
>>noise -- but it's still there.

>If it is "lost in the noise", then why quantify the cost of an abberant
>poster and use that quantification to justify various forms of reproach?
>Isn't that like picking nits?

It's more like turning up the noise ;-)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: who pays for USENET
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:53:49 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <294@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>Please see my article in a parallel branch of this thread for my
>response about your idea of separate budgets.  In brief: all budgets
>are a subset of the main budget from which all money flows.  It's
>all tied together and money spent on personnel is money not spent
>getting better food in the cafeteria (or verse-visa).

In other words, if I trade in my Sparc 2 for a Radio Shack TRS-80 (OBHack:
create X server for TRS-80), I'll get a pay raise?

Sure, all money comes from 'above'. But saving money in one area does not
necessarily mean that the money will appear in a different area, i.e.
it is not a 'let's make the numbers add up' type game. If that were the
case, we'd all be using VT100's off an aging VAX-11/780 and pocketing
the difference.

Spiros
-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Distribution: world
Organization:  One of these days for sure
X-News: HERMES MMAIL 1.04 Rev. Sep  5 1992
Subject: Re: Ill-effects of a posting greater than 64k
	<1992Oct3.191106.18867@dscomsf.desy.de> <372@ulogic.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 13:18:56 -0700

In <372@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:

>In article <1992Oct3.191106.18867@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>>When articles get split up they often can only be pieced back 
>>together manually.
...
>>There are many occasions in which one part in a ten part post gets
>>lost. In this case the whole article is useless. It would waste fewer 
>>resources here if either the whole article arrived, or none of it did.

>Hold the pieces until all arrive.  Piece it together then.  If you
>don't get the last piece w/in a reasonable time, junk the article.
>You keep 9/10ths on you disk for a couple days max.

   The other factor to consider is that requesting someone mail you one part
of a 10 part posting you missed is a heck of a lot easier than asking for a
complete file, and for many users at many sites, who have restrictions on the
size of mail they can recieve, the latter is out of the question.


-- 
       John Henders      jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca
    I think your "evolutionary scale" needs an adjustment.  Either 
      that, or you've got your thumb on it. -> (lefty@apple.com)
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Ill-effects of a posting greater than 64k
Date: 27 Sep 92 01:42:25 GMT
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

>x10066@raphael.corp.mot.com writes:

>>Can somebody tell me what are the ill-effects of having an article
>>posted which is larger than the recommended size of 64k ?

>for one thing -- the fidonet gates would crop -- since they can
>only handle messages of something like 10K -- which is about
>worthless when it comes to the usenet world.

>In fact, some of the fidonet software doesn't like anything larger
>than 8K.  Like I said, worthless in the real world -- tolerable
>in the amateur network.

No, Fidonet Technical Standards do *not* set a limit on message size.
As in the Usenet world, there are some braindead *programs* that
can't handle things.

I know of *no* Fidonet software with a limit in k. I know of several
that have problems with the number of *lines*. (several chop message
bodies at line 100, one chops at line 299)

I regularly get the RISKS Digest on my Fido node. The gateway chops
it into sections, but it gets thru to me.

btw, Fido is no more "amatuer" than Usenet is "professional". Both
nets have sites that fit those descriptions. They also have sites
that are the opposite.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Ill-effects of a posting greater than 64k
Date: 27 Sep 92 12:39:38 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) writes:
> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> > It causes UUCP systems using slow modems on noisy lines to waste ...
>            ^ broken

No, not broken.  *All* UUCP systems on bad lines will handle large postings
less well than they handle small ones.

Consider a 2400 baud UUCP site (there are plenty around still) collecting a
5MB article.  It has to keep its link working for over 4 hours.  If the line
fails for some reason, it has to dial in again and start transferring the
article again from the beginning.

Therefore, if the line is sufficiently poor that the mean time between
failures is less than four hours, the UUCP system will take an indefinite
amount of time to transfer the article.

On the other hand, if the article is split up into 80 64K chunks, the UUCP
system might (say) fail on chunk #50, dial in again, and not have to transfer
the first 49 chunks again.

You could devise some system which automatically split up big articles and
put them together at the far end, but it wouldn't be UUCP.

> If one limited the world to the lowest common denominator of broken tools,
> we would still be using stone wheels.

If you're saying that everyone using UUCP should just fuck off and disconnect
from the net, might I ask who the hell you think you are?


mathew
-- 
"I don't believe that where German soldiers have been they can't go again."
 -- Volker Ru"he, German Defence Minister
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:48:08 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


> "Free Speech" does not mean government-sponsored printing presses

As far as I'm concerned, the 'government' can shut down the Internet
any time they feel like it.

The vacuum thus created will be immediately filled by the
UUNET/Fidonet/RIME/et cetera ad nauseam network that already exists.

It would probably run better at a lower cost.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston)
Subject: Re: who pays for USENET
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:41:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.214623.928@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:

>The cost IS there. But not to the extent that individual users will
>start seeing USENET: $29.30 after FICA and FED-TAXES. For a smaller

[I said:]
>>Or to come at it the other way, if Usenet cost a thousand dollars a
[...]
>>probably WOULD be able to detect the difference in our paychecks.

>Yes, Yes, and Yes. 

So it sounds to me like what you are really saying, then, is not that
the individual user doesn't pay for USENET.  You are saying that he pays
such a miniscule amount that he doesn't notice.  This is not the same
thing at all.

However, I think I shall get out of this argument since it's turning
into one purely of semantics, which is not the most productive thing
to talk about.  I think we all agree that, tiny or large, USENET is
having some financial effect on nearly everyone who reads it,
especially at schools or companies.  Discussing what (if anything) to
do about it is probably more useful than discussing how to describe it.
(Discussing whether the semantics of the situation is (are?) important
belongs in some other group, or email.  :-)

	Cathy

-- 
Cathy Foulston + Rice University + Network & Systems Support + cathyf@rice.edu
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: who pays for USENET
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:54:46 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <302@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>>In other words, if I trade in my Sparc 2 for a Radio Shack TRS-80 (OBHack:
>>create X server for TRS-80), I'll get a pay raise?
>
>In some companies, yes.  Our company has frequently had to make decisions
>between new employees vs. new equipment.  Those people we didn't hire
>aren't making the money that we didn't pay them because we bought a SUN
>workstation.....

After a couple of iterations of this thread I did mention that my
concepts of budgets etc do not apply to all places; But still noone got
a pay cut to pay for the workstation :-)


>In other companies the people up top "from whom all
>money flows" will just pocket the difference as an increase in profit.
>It's not my fault if you work for a company like that :)

Not likely since our organization has lots of shareholders (GMHE on NYSE). 

>I have not been saying that if you don't spend it in place X it must show
>up in place Y, I (and others have been saying) if you spend it in place
>X you do not have the option to spend it in place Y.  Surely this is clear
>enough now that you don't have any grip left to play silly semantic games
>anymore?

Our difference is whether money from X can move from/to Y or not. That
is, whether money from, say, computing services can move to payroll. This
can be true in some cases (small companies likely) but unlikely in a
company the size of ours; That's reality, not semantics, I'm afraid. 

Spiros


-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: who pays for USENET
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:56:16 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <1992Sep28.134442.4772@r-node.gts.org> marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Sys Admin) writes:
>In article <1a2chbINN7fq@nigel.msen.com> emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti) writes:
>>Who pays for USENET?  I pay for USENET.
>>
>>Every month I get a bill in the mail it says
>>
>>	USENET		$4,000,000,000.00
>
>	What do you get for this????  Is this a joke, or totally 
>serious??
>
>Marc

Nah, he's just Mutley's news feed... 

:-)

Spiros


-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
From: space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org (Lars Soltau)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Hasan B Mutlu
Date: 18 Sep 92 16:54:17 GMT
Organization: United Federation of Planets
	<SPACE.92Sep6172545@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org> <1487@frackit.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ncc1701.stgt.sub.org
In-reply-to: dave@frackit.UUCP's message of 11 Sep 92 21:42:29 GMT

>>>>> On 11 Sep 92 21:42:29 GMT, dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) said:

> In article <SPACE.92Sep6172545@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org>,
  space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org (Lars Soltau) writes:

>> I don't think we should reduce the technical standard of Usenet to the lowest
>> common denominator, some Foobar Usenet system developed by someone on the
>> Sinclair ZX81, do you? 

> Waffle was neither developed on a Sinclair nor is it a Foobar USenet
> system. Find out what you are talking about before spewing flamage
> please. 

First, it was not intended as flamage. Second, I wasn't claiming Waffle ran on
the ZX81, I was simply using "reduction ad absurdum" on Spiros' argument,
meaning that IF someone developed some Usenet system for the ZX81, would you
be willing to give up some of the comfort your news system offers because
theirs doesn't support it?

As Chip Salzenberg put it: Use whatever news system you want, but don't
complain about it not supporting this or that, especially if "this or that" is
accepted standard.

>> If a system does not support KILL files, change it or
>> drop it, but don't ask the rest of us (the overwhelming majority) to act as if
>> they didn't exist.

> Some people CAN'T "change it or drop it".  Your argument smacks of an
> elitist mentality and has been used on the net before.

I am elitist insofar as I don't want things to stagnate because not everyone
is able to follow the pace. I am an enemy of the "lowest common denominator".

> Also, please
> state the statistics which support your assertion of actions of "(the
> overwhelming majority)".

What do you want me to do, conduct a poll?
Hey, I've got an idea. There is this great feature in most news systems, the
"sendsys" control message. This control message, posted world wide, will give
you an impression of what percentage of the Usenet community runs which
system.

NO! STOP! Don't do it! Arrgh! :-) :-) :-)

>> As for the newbie not knowing about KILL files, again I cannot agree that we
>> should drop all the goodies a rookie does not know about. Rookies generally
>> don't know about cross posting, are you suggesting we don't use cross posting
>> in the future?

> It IS possible for new users to be unaware of kill files. It is also
> possible for long time users who ARE running 'Real Usenet Software' [tm]
> to not even HAVE them.

Of course. Nevertheless they can't expect the rest of the net to shed a tear
for them.

> But then, I'd rather spend my time reading news than trying to squeeze
> yet another line into killfile.

As a matter of fact, kill files tend to save you much more time than it takes
to set them up.
--
Lars Soltau	bang: <insert ridiculously long path>	    BIX: -- no bucks --
		smart: space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org

     Germany, Stuttgart-Zuffenhausen, where dreams come true: Heaven is 911!
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Sys Admin)
Subject: Re: who pays for USENET
Organization: R-node Public Access UNIX Information System (416-249-5366)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:44:42 GMT

In article <1a2chbINN7fq@nigel.msen.com> emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti) writes:
>Who pays for USENET?  I pay for USENET.
>
>Every month I get a bill in the mail it says
>
>	USENET		$4,000,000,000.00

	What do you get for this????  Is this a joke, or totally 
serious??

Marc
-- 
Marc G. Fournier      | R-node Public Access Unix running UnixBBS 1.03
Etobicoke, Ontario    | 416-249-5366   24hrs 7 days/week   network email
voice: 249-4230       | shell accounts available  1800+ newsgroups  FREE
marc@r-node.pci.on.ca | Telebit WorldBlazer/SupraModem2400/Cardinal 2400
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: [SOC] ABOUT THE BEATING DEATH OF MR. LUYEN PHAN NGUYEN
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:19:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: philmtl.1992Oct2.001914.12817
Organization: On the Brew.

In referenced article, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <20836@drutx.ATT.COM> nguyen@drutx.ATT.COM (Christopher Chu) writes:
>>Also, for your information, this socially related article
>>is being forwarded to 54 USENET soc.culture.* newsgroups in order to
>>socialize this event to interested readers anywhere in world.
>
>Sigh.

54 times sigh.  They were individually posted, not cross-posted.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home    |    ray@philmtl.philips.ca    |    (514) 630 3749
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: preventing articles from expiring
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 22:24:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.181437.18855@schbbs.mot.com>, mshah@next3.corp.mot.com
writes:

|>We have a news group that carries some standards which do not change
|>frequently. They are set to expire in 365 days. Is there a way to 
|>get around this and prevent this articles from expiring after the 
|>set period of 365 days which is the max. allowable limit for the version of  
|>news we are running. This way we will be  releived from the burden of 
|>re-posting them.

I can think of several ways of attempting this sort of thing, patching the
expirer for one. However it strikes me that you are trying to use the wrong
tool. News is designed for bulk transfer of short term data. What you have is a
system where you want long term access to a small amount of data, presumably in
a small locality.

There are several approaches to longer term archiving. The simplest being anon
ftp, though this might not be what you want to do if you have security concerns.
Then there are WAIS, gopher and WWW. WAIS and gopher have their own newsgroups
(alt.gopher and alt.WAIS). World wide web has a telnet address which drops you
into a primitive line mode brower (telnet info.cern.ch, password web). I just
put up WWW here, took me about a day to get it up then a few more days providing
some simple support tools (before people ask they will be avaliable once they
are tested). This may be rather less time than working out how to fudge CNews or
whatever would take.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,news.sysadmin
From: lampman@fullfeed.fullfeed.com (Ray Lampman)
Subject: MAPS! (was Re: Clinton/Gore organization is on the net)
Followup-To: news.admin
Summary: So, where are these "Usenet maps"?
Keywords: Usenet network maps location?
Reply-To: Ray.Lampman@FullFeed.Com
Organization: FullFeed - Public Access Usenet/Email (+1 608 246 2701 guest)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 07:53:16 GMT

In article <90619@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
# 
# There is nothing to prevent the NRA, Operation Rescue, and "a whole slew
# of other groups" from getting on the Internet, Usenet or any other network
# ... providing that they can pay the bill.  For example, you might
# find a scan of the Usenet "maps" quite interesting, ...
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please, direct me to these "Usenet maps", at once!

I'd like to scan them. I know we have "UUCP" maps, but  I  wasn't
aware  that  we had mapped "Usenet" sites. If so, where are these
maps? And if not, why no maps? Due to no  central  authority?  Or
for self-protection? Are there technical road-blocks?

Ray.Lampman
-- 
Ray.Lampman@FullFeed.Com  ,^-_    FullFeed provides public access
359 Raven Lane            L   `; Usenet news and email, plus UUCP
Madison, WI 53704, USA    \ . J   connections to the Madison area
voice +1 608 246 4239      L__]  data +1 608 246 2701 login guest
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
Subject: Re: Ill-effects of a posting greater than 64k
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon, US
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:13:49 GMT

mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

> It causes UUCP systems using slow modems on noisy lines to waste ...
           ^ broken

> It causes people with dumbish newsreaders 

So get smart pagers.

> It causes some gateways (to other networks such as Fidonet) to fall over
                ^ broken

If one limited the world to the lowest common denominator of broken tools,
we would still be using stone wheels.

Fix the broken software.  Adhere to and enforce standards.

randy
-- 
randy@psg.com   ...!uunet!m2xenix!randy
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Ill-effects of a posting greater than 64k
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:11:06 GMT

In article <BvAz89.Cop@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
writes:

|>In article <7441@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
|>writes:
|>>In article <1992Sep26.151349.1962@psg.com> randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
|>writes:
|>>>mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
|>>>> It causes UUCP systems using slow modems on noisy lines to waste ...
|>>>           ^ broken
|>>            ^ standard
|>             ^ standard broken?

Perhaps we should all go back to using JCL and programming in FORTRAN IV?

This argument is a bit pointless since there is noboby who can make a decision
on the matter - execpt people who start posting large articles.

From my point of view it is rather daft to expect the whole USEnet to be driven
by the needs of modem users with crappy software. Equally it is unreasonable to
expect everyone on the net to have a 100 spec mark workstation.

However it is amazing what happens when people are forced into changes. Take the
IBM group here. After years of demanding that the whole computing environment of
the site be organised round their obsolete FORTRAN (its "standard" - right?),
their crappy communications etc etc, people finally said "sod it" and bought
workstations. Then the strange thing was that it suddenly became possible to
have long variable names, TCP/IP connections etc.

The reason why long articles *ARE GOING TO START APPEARING REGARDLESS* is that
we haven't even touched on some of the things we could (and should) start doing
with the net.

For example we could easily integrate hypertext into the communications
protocols, there are already World Wide Web browsers which are capable of
reading SGML and which have NNTP connections for reading USEnet. Within a year
or so they should be quite common. (telnet info.cern.ch, password web for demo)

When articles get split up they often can only be pieced back together manually.
I have programs which assist in this process, but even those only get to about
90% accuracy. There are many occasions in which one part in a ten part post gets
lost. In this case the whole article is useless. It would waste fewer resources
here if either the whole article arrived, or none of it did.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: news.admin