From: gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.)
Newsgroups: houston.general
Subject: Re: News Feed
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:08:12 GMT
Distribution: houston
Organization: Southwest Systems Development Labs, Houston, TX

In article <X10LPQL@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>The two big problems with Usenet today are the Internet and the Domain Name
>System.

Usenet != UUCPnet
(news)    (transport mechanism)

although you're right, this is yet another problem that will need to
ultimately be dealt with.  For the moment I was just dealing with
netnews because it is the biggest problem.

To address the two issues briefly though that you discuss--  I agree
that domain parks is a good idea (if implemented properly, which is, of
course, my way :).  I do know why people have been looking to be
close to *the* Internet:  reliability.   Most people are overstating
their connectivity in the netmaps quite severely.  Mail gets delayed
for days trying to attach to sites which are down or who's operators
are using it to play solitaire for windows.

Case in point -- I'm on a low-volume mailing list (Intelligent House list)
which gets about 3 messages of about 20-30 lines per day.  Because of
a map change, my mail started to go through a site operated by a prominent
oil company in Houston.  The mail on that route gets delayed for two
days waiting to get through that site (with costs of DEMAND into and out
of the site).  Mail to postmaster at that site goes unanswered.

I was miffed for two reasons -- first was that my domain address was
being routed via UUCP, and I (personally) feel it should be resolved
using DNS on some site on the Internet so it can take the fastest route
here (this is where Peter and I differ, and I understand both sides on
this one).  The other reason was that there's nothing *I* can do when
someone decides to be "irresponsible" (note the quotation marks, I am
not going to fan a flamewar on what constitutes irresponsibility) and
artificially lowers the costs in the UUCPnet maps to make their site
look more like a backbone.  If you don't feel you have the time or
can make the commitment to route others' mail, then raise the costs,
don't lower them!  Your mail won't get to you any faster with the
costs artificially lowered - it just means you need to commit to
routing more mail.

Mail is a subject that can be debated for hours with no answer in
sight.  I still feel that mail traffic is the least of the concern
right now.  With all the netnews flowing, mail has problems squeeking-
in.

>I'm lousy at organizing, but I think we need a Houston Usenet Sites
>group/council/whatever, with regular meetings. This could be a spinoff
>from Hounix, or a HACS type organization. Any volunteers to run it?
>
>Gil?

**NOT** HOUNIX!  Please, don't get me started on that subject!  HOUNIX
has not done ANYTHING for the net, IMO.  This is also NOT a UNIX problem.
It's a "net" problem.

For those that know me personally, I am much easier to talk to in
writing than in person.  I do appreciate the nomination, but I'm not
sure that folks would listen to me.

I'm also concerned that if we were to form a "council" that there would
be a lot of talk but nothing would get done.  Everyone has their own
opinion about WHAT the problem is, and although we're all probably right
to some extent, the solutions clash too much to get something accomplished.

A good starting place for a council of sorts to be started in this
newsgroup is to think about the following:

1.  There is too much news.  We need to reduce the quantity.
    "You can't have everything.  Where would you put it?"

2.  If we eliminate newsgroups, they will end up becoming mailing lists
    (imagine everyone saying "Please mail me a copy of that 500K
     widget-generator posted to alt.sources")

3.  If we distribute different newsgroups among different sites, everyone
    will want the groups they don't get.

4.  If we created our OWN "local net" and scrapped USENET in its entirety,
    we would still need a mail gateway, and someone would start mailing
    USENET groups through the mail.

5.  If we had only certain sites acting as archive sites and keeping
    *.sources.* there, it would be an administrative headache, and
    everyone would clog the mail system requesting source code.

6.  No matter how much you emphasize responsiblity, there will still be
    a site on the net that is admin'd by a user who can not and will not
    learn how to properly deal with mail/news/etc, and will also be the
    person who will post a map that has all their connections in the
    maps as LOCAL, because, of course, it's a LOCAL call.

7.  We need dynamic rerouting of mail.

8.  We need a reliable mail gateway to the Internet that isn't already
    clogged with news feeds

This is a start.  I have a lot on my mind, but I'm not able to just
dump core onto the net.

-- 
! Gil Kloepfer, Jr.
! gil@limbic.ssdl.com / ...!ames!limbic!gil