Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!ames!amdahl!oliveb!jerry From: jerry@oliveb.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: "NNTP has had a number of very bad effects on the net..." Message-ID: <25323@oliveb.olivetti.com> Date: 12 Jul 88 22:45:49 GMT References: <1830@looking.UUCP><4277@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> <4414@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> Reply-To: jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 25 In article <4414@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: >Since we don't have the old bandwidth constraints (uucp batching, etc), >I think we should create some new ones. How about adding a >re-transmission delay into the news software, so that an article would >wait at a particular site for at least a few hours (say) before being >sent out again? That way, the high-bandwidth newsgroups would have >discussions with delays of a few days or so, instead of an hour or >two. We could set different delays for different newsgroups, so that Sence we don't want the article to take 14 days to transmit from one end of the net to the other how about putting the delay in the news reader. You could receive the article, forward it, but not allow anyone to read it until two days after it was posted. That way everyone would see it at the same time. Of course I won't be willing to wait the two days so I will disable this feature at my site... I can't believe that people are complaining about news transmission being too fast! It wasn't that long ago that a large portion of the articles would take more than the default expiration time to reach everyone. The software is also a lot more reliable and there are more redundant paths now. Perhaps we should also add a random junker that corrupts or eliminates some of the articles. With a little coding we could be back where we were years ago.