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 :-)