Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site milo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!milo!eric From: eric@milo.UUCP (Eric Bergan) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: How robust will satellite distribution be? Message-ID: <790@milo.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Dec-84 12:25:56 EST Article-I.D.: milo.790 Posted: Mon Dec 24 12:25:56 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Dec-84 01:58:27 EST References: <753@sdcsla.UUCP> <480@vortex.UUCP> Organization: JHU/Applied Physics Lab, Laurel, MD Lines: 23 Given that there are now hundreds (thousands?) of news machines, is it really reasonable to try and send "makeup" news whenever one of them is down? Seems to me that at any given moment, there must be at least a handful of news machines down. Perhaps a better solution is simply to allow a machine that has been down to call a "news repository" via UUCP and get the missing articles. Then the burden is placed on the system that went down, not the satellite distribution. I suspect the result would be that some sites would determine it is not important to get the missing news, while others would be allowed to catch up if they wished. In either case, the software should be set up so that the site administrator is presented a list of groups, and missing articles, so that they can decide not to pick up the 1236 net.flame articles, but they do want the 15 net.sources articles. Perhaps we should somehow design this to be at least partially compatable with the "distributed news" effort? Seems there are some common traits, albiet on different scales. -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!milo!eric