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.