Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ncar!oddjob!uwvax!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!udel!princeton!njin!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: "NNTP has had a number of very bad effects on the net..." Message-ID:Date: 14 Jul 88 13:26:42 GMT References: <1830@looking.UUCP> <4456@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 15 In article <4456@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>, faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: > In article , webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: < < I hardly see anything timely about comp.risks. < < The major reason I don't think it needs artificial delays is that it's < moderated. Moderated groups are limited in bandwidth by the moderators < (except for sources and binaries). Any idea how many of the top volume < groups are moderated? Try this one on: the high volume groups are kept artificially high by difficulty in creating new unmoderated groups. Split the net up into a million groups -- all low volume -- will you then be happy? The size of the flow does not belong to any one group -- it belongs to the net as a whole. The boundaries are completely artificial. ---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)