Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!cit-vax!
ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hoptoad!gnu
From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Expiration dates on OtherRealms
Message-ID: <2525@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Mon, 27-Jul-87 01:43:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.2525
Posted: Mon Jul 27 01:43:40 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jul-87 01:03:22 EDT
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 110
I was checking the age of some of the news on my disk and noticed that
last month's OtherRealms (rec.mag.otherrealms) had a 1-month expiry
date, and that this month's 111K expires in November. I think this is an
abuse of Expires: and am not interested in keeping Chuq's "magazine"
on my "coffee table" for longer than the default expiration period.
Chuq sees no reason to fix it; this is our interaction:
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 87 16:36:34 PDT
From: gnu (John Gilmore)
To: sun!plaid!chuq
Subject: Expiration dates on OtherRealms
I was checking why /usr/spool was filling up and found that I have
back copies of OtherRealms from last month (due to an expiration date
late this month) and copies from this month which will not expire
until November!
Why should OtherRealms not expire like the rest of the netnews -- by
local option, based on how much disk space they have? Everything else
sticks around hoptoad for 9 days, but OtherRealms should be here for months?
I don't like to override expiration dates, because that blows away
things like the maps, news lists, and conference announcements that
have a legitimate reason to stick around. But this requires that
people don't abuse 'Expires:', which is why I'm asking you to fix it
rather than just blasting all old articles no matter what their expiration
date.
The first set of OtherRealms will expire in a day or two, but I think
you should send out a cancel on the other ones, since they have been out
there for 12 days now, which is roughly the right interval.
John
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 87 19:54:56 PDT
From: sun!chuq (Chuq Von Rospach)
To: hoptoad!gnu
Subject: Re: Expiration dates on OtherRealms
It's done for a couple of reasons:
1) because I'm constantly getting requests for back issues (or replacement
copies) because OtherRealms comes out much less often than the
default expiration, so the newsgroup is often empty. This implies
a lot of (needless) large e-mail files.
2) because the way Brian's demographics run, it is impossible to get a
reasonable number for OR's readers any other way, since it is likely
that the issue has expired before the arbitron is read.
3) because OtherRealms is a very low volume group when you think about it,
and can't be causing major disk problems. On a machine with little
readership turnover (like hoptoad) it probably isn't necessary, but
I really need some way of keeping OtherRealms around between issues to
make it available, and the Expires: is the only way -- unless I want
to republish it every few weeks, which I think is a real waste.
It doesn't take up much time (I'm surprised the previous issue hadn't
expired -- it should have from the date I put on it). Um, make that space.
If you want to override it, be my guest -- I don't believe that it can
really cause serious disk problems, and becuse of the ways that OR is
different from the rest of the net, it is justified.
chuq
---------
Gnu here again. I'd like to rebut Chuq's reasons here.
1) I'd like to put a long expiration date on everything I post so that
nobody would bother me about getting copies of it, too. In fact, let's
expire comp.sources in 1995 or so. As you can see, if everyone played
this game there would be no disk left. Wouldn't it be better to tell
folks to save away the issues when they arrive, if they really care enough
to email around the net looking for copies after they expire? Sounds
like education is in order, not long expiry dates.
2) This is an odd one! The claim is that because Brian Reid's readership
survey exists, Chuq's postings should stick around to be sure they are counted.
Why not time the release of the magazine to coincide with the surveys,
like the TV networks and such do? Or just ignore the survey?
3) I don't understand this one. Because OtherRealms is such a low
volume group, people don't read it when it comes out? Can't its
readers fight their way through all 111K before it expires? It seems
that a better solution would be to post it in pieces, say one per week,
so that there would usually be something there but the whole thing wouldn't
stick around for months.
I'd take the issue to Stupid Peoples' Court but it seems to be out
of session. So I'll take it to the news administrators instead.
If we assume that, like mod.mag.otherrealms, rec.mag.otherrealms
reaches 90% of the now ~6800 Usenet sites, that's ~6100 sites.
The current issue is therefore tying up ~677,100,000 bytes of disk around
the world and will continue to do so until November.
While burning disk space all over the world is a "solution" to Chuq's
problems, it bothers me. So far nobody else has refused to remove
Expires: lines or failed to cancel "never expires" type postings, once
I explained what Expires: was for, and how individual sites manage
their disk space. (Every once in a while I read the front of my
history file to see what old articles still linger there, and email the
folks who did it, educating them about how untutored use of Expires: is
a Bad Thing.) Chuq seems to see his group as more important than the
rules for Expires: lines. Do the rest of the news admins agree?
--
{dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu g...@postgres.berkeley.edu
Alt.all: the alternative radio of the Usenet.
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!labrea!decwrl!sun!plaid!chuq
From: chuq%...@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Expiration dates on OtherRealms
Message-ID: <24226@sun.uucp>
Date: Mon, 27-Jul-87 12:46:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.24226
Posted: Mon Jul 27 12:46:12 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jul-87 07:28:56 EDT
References: <2525@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Fictional Reality, uLtd
Lines: 82
>Gnu here again. I'd like to rebut Chuq's reasons here.
And I'll re-rebut. Glad I was warned this was going public...
>1) I'd like to put a long expiration date on everything I post so that
>nobody would bother me about getting copies of it, too. In fact, let's
>expire comp.sources in 1995 or so. As you can see, if everyone played
>this game there would be no disk left.
The question is, John, how often you get requests for copies of your
articles? Before I upped the Expiration date, I was averaging four or five
requests a week (just to UUCP -- I'm ignoring the ARPA and non-phone-bill
sites here). That's 100K per copy, or about 2 megabytes a month flowing
out to handle speciail requests.
Since I implemented the Expires, I've had two requests, over two months and
two issues. A significant drop in mail volume, which I think justifies
the Expires. The disk is cheap, and any sysadmin dying for disk space can
override it as they wish.
>2) This is an odd one! The claim is that because Brian Reid's readership
>survey exists, Chuq's postings should stick around to be sure they are counted.
>Why not time the release of the magazine to coincide with the surveys,
>like the TV networks and such do? Or just ignore the survey?
Not odd at all. I can't time the release of OtherRealms to the surveys,
because the surveys happen whenever a given site feels like doing them --
and it also depends on the vagaries of transmission delays, holding times,
etc. such that there is no way for something that is distributed to the net
can hit the survey reliably. I could possibly ignore it, but the size and
demographics of OtherRealms happens to be of strong interest to me.
>3) I don't understand this one. Because OtherRealms is such a low
>volume group, people don't read it when it comes out? Can't its
>readers fight their way through all 111K before it expires?
You misunderstand completely -- it isn't the folks who are there when it
comes out, it is the folks who come on-line in between issues that I'm
trying to serve. They get told about OtherRealms by a co-worked, the group
is empty, so the write and ask me for it. By giving it a long expiration,
the new users can get it on the local system without having to have it
mailed to them.
As I said in my mail to you, on a site without a lot of users being added,
the Expires won't really help. But on the other sites, it HAS helped,
because OtherRealms is there when a new user goes looking for it, so I don't
have to mail a fresh copy out (saving modem costs along the way...)
>It seems
>that a better solution would be to post it in pieces, say one per week,
>so that there would usually be something there but the whole thing wouldn't
>stick around for months.
Not possible, because of what OtherRealms is. That may be a better solution
to you, but you don't seem to understand the philosophy behind OtherRealms.
>I'd take the issue to Stupid Peoples' Court but it seems to be out
>of session. So I'll take it to the news administrators instead.
>While burning disk space all over the world is a "solution" to Chuq's
>problems, it bothers me.
I don't seen any reason in what John says to remove the Expires. disk is
cheap, and by using it I've significantly cut the special mailings I've had
to make, significantly cutting the overall cost of OtherRealms on the net. I
consider this a Good Thing. Any system administrator that disagrees with me
is free to override me on their local system, which is perfectly fine with
me as well. But I don't see anything in Johns arguments that convince me
that what I'm doing is wrong from a new-wide point of view. If anyone wants
to try to convince me otherwise, they're welcome to.
If the size, distribution, etc of OtherRealms has gotten to the point where
it is really a hassle to the net, then perhaps it is time to move
OtherRealms off of USENET and make it strictly a printed publication. I
consider the electronic version of OtherRealms to be a service I give to the
net. If that service is really a problem in disguise, then perhaps it is
time to re-think whether it really belongs here anymore.
chuq (editor, otherrealms)
Chuq Von Rospach ch...@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!hao!ames!lll-lcc!ptsfa!hoptoad!gnu
From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Expiration dates -- me too!
Message-ID: <2640@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Thu, 6-Aug-87 05:21:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.2640
Posted: Thu Aug 6 05:21:06 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Aug-87 09:44:19 EDT
Expires: Thu, 5-Nov-87 21:34:52 EDT
References: <2525@hoptoad.uucp> <6957@g.ms.uky.edu> <3646@well.UUCP>
<24948@sun.uucp>
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 40
I find it odd that people are suggesting that every news admin on
every system should be editing their expire scripts and making multiple
passes over their news file system to "clean up" after a few people
who want "a little more" of your disk space than the rest of the net.
It seems to me that instead, the moderators of comp.*.amiga and
otherrealms should forego the use of Expires: and instead broadcast an
appeal to news admins to go in and edit their expiry scripts by hand so
that these newsgroups will stick around longer.
I'm bothered that the folks who want exceptional treatment are just
quietly "taking" it rather than asking each news admin for it. I think
that the default on this 6800-site network should be that news admins
don't have to do anything to keep their system running OK.
However, it seems that the net has pretty much decided that people
are free to systematically put Expires: lines into their postings.
That's OK by me, I'm willing to conform, and I guess I *will* change
my expire script after all.
[Enter sarcasm:
By the way, I've decided that my postings are more important than
yours, so I am putting a 3-month expiry date on them. I am constantly
getting requests for things that I posted and I have found a solution.
While your words quietly slip off disks all over the world, mine will
remain. I only post a hundred K or so a month, so it will be no great
load on the net. *** I encourage anyone else who reads this to add
their choice of Expires: line to each posting they create, too. ***
Sources moderators, how about expiring your postings in 2 or 3 years,
then we can get rid of the archives, which were always a bother to
maintain, plus consider all the e-mail traffic they generate.
Exit sarcasm, stage left.]
Nothing like fighting anarchy with anarchy, especially when
the net has just hashed it out and decided you have the right.
PS: Now looks like a good time to buy stock in disk manufacturers!
--
{dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu g...@postgres.berkeley.edu
Alt.all: the alternative radio of the Usenet.
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ames!oliveb!sun!plaid!chuq
From: chuq%...@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Expiration dates -- me too!
Message-ID: <25029@sun.uucp>
Date: Thu, 6-Aug-87 12:37:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.25029
Posted: Thu Aug 6 12:37:40 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Aug-87 11:51:24 EDT
References: <2525@hoptoad.uucp> <6957@g.ms.uky.edu> <3646@well.UUCP>
<24948@sun.uucp> <2640@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Fictional Reality, uLtd
Lines: 35
>[Enter sarcasm:
>By the way, I've decided that my postings are more important than
>yours, so I am putting a 3-month expiry date on them. I am constantly
>getting requests for things that I posted and I have found a solution.
>While your words quietly slip off disks all over the world, mine will
>remain. I only post a hundred K or so a month, so it will be no great
>load on the net. *** I encourage anyone else who reads this to add
>their choice of Expires: line to each posting they create, too. ***
>Sources moderators, how about expiring your postings in 2 or 3 years,
>then we can get rid of the archives, which were always a bother to
>maintain, plus consider all the e-mail traffic they generate.
>Exit sarcasm, stage left.]
>
>Nothing like fighting anarchy with anarchy, especially when
>the net has just hashed it out and decided you have the right.
I would point out one significant difference between OtherRealms and John
Gilmore. OtherRealms is in one newsgroup, carefully controlled. Gilmore's
postings are in a number of different newsgroups.
So, if you want to do pre-delete Gilmore's Expire-lengthened articles,
you're going to have to go looking for them. At least you know where mine
are -- in rec.mag.otherrealms, where they belong.
Since the vast majority of net folks and admins on the net disagreed
strongly with John, he's going to act like an immature child and try to
force people to do it his way anyway. Contrary to what John is implying,
the net didn't approve Expires: lines. They approved Expires: lines for
OtherRealms. This isn't anarchy, this is terrorism. I'm very disappointed
in the way he's reacting. I expected better.
chuq
Chuq Von Rospach ch...@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703)
|