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)