Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site munnari.OZ
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!munnari!kre
From: kre@munnari.OZ (Robert Elz)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: mailing lists vs. newsgroups: facts
Message-ID: <915@munnari.OZ>
Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 14:03:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: munnari.915
Posted: Sat Sep 14 14:03:45 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 23:42:50 EDT
References: <3221@nsc.UUCP> <789@vortex.UUCP> <3256@nsc.UUCP>
Organization: Comp Sci, Melbourne Uni, Australia
Lines: 83
Summary: Counter example to "the formula" - its far too simplistic

In <3221@nsc.UUCP> Chuq created a formula that purported to
determine the number of users needed on a mailing list before
it becomes more economical to make it a mailing list.  The
number derived was something between 40 and 107.

In <789@vortex.UUCP> Lauren noted that this formula was
nonsense (my words), provoking <3256@nsc.UUCP> from Chuq
bemoaning the "opinion unsupported by facts".

Frankly, I thought that the inadequacy of the formula so
patently obvious, that providing "facts" to rebut it would
be hardly worth the trouble, but here goes anyway.

According to Chuq, if I establish a mailing list with (lets
overestimate for safety) 200 members, then it is more economical
to the net at large to turn it into a newsgroup (perhaps
moderated).  Numbers are the only criterion that counts...

Well, my mailing list is in Australia - the formula doesn't
include localities as a parameter - in fact, it concerns
some local Australian TV soap opera that isn't seen outside
Australia, and never will be.

Yet, somehow, amazingly, its more economical to the net as
a whole to turn this thing into a newsgroup than to leave it
as a mailing list!

What's more, nothing changes if the mailing list isn't spread
over 200 different Australian hosts, but is all on my local
host and doesn't go over the network at all!

[Please don't interject & say I could create a local, or
Australian newsgroup - of course I could.  But that isn't
what 'the formula' supposedly tells me - it says that a "net"
or "mod" group is appropriate for my list.  I also realize that
numbers alone aren't the only criterion for deciding to switch
a list to a newsgroup.  The only question here is which is more
economical to the net - and Chuq's formula says a newsgroup
would be.  There may easily be other reasons than economics
for deciding to keep a mailing list]

Come on - that formula is far too simplistic, to decide that
any particular mailing list would be more economical as a
newsgroup takes much more analysis than just counting members.

What's more, a properly run mailing list would add traffic to
no links not between hosts with users receiving the list.  That's
how mailing lists ought to be run - if a site wants to get it,
it should call some other site that is already getting the list
(perhaps the originator, perhaps a relay site) and have it sent
from there.  That way, only the recipients of the list pay for
it, which is as it should be.  People setting up mailing lists
should bear this in mind, as should people requesting to be
added to such lists.

I know that will never happen - mail will always be forwarded
through "volunteer" sites, but we should aim for something
approaching this ideal.  If we assume this, then before a mailing
list is more economical to the net as a whole as a newsgroup,
almost every site on the net would need to receive it.  (I am
not going to attempt to fudge mathematics to show this, to me
it seems fairly clear, but please take this as an opinion.)

The problem of sending multiple copies of a mailing list in
multiple uucp transfers has also been noted.  Quite apart
from the fix to sendmail apparently in 4.3, this is quite easy
to avoid - if multiple people at one site are on a mailing list
that site should set up a redistribution point - get just one
copy, and redistribute it to all the local users - and possibly
to others at more remote sites.  This can be done now (or at least
those of us with any kind of reasonable mailer (sendmail, mmdf, ..)
can do it).

In his articles, Chuq issued pleas for more facts on the net.
I concur - but please lets have *facts* not pseudo-facts, I'd
much rather read an article which is clearly someone's opinion,
unsupported by anything, than one which pretends to be solid
fact, and is wrong.

Robert Elz		seismo!munnari!kre   kre%munnari.oz@seismo.css.gov

ps: the mailing list mentioned above doesn't actually exist,
please don't ask to be added to it :-)