Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ukma!husc6!ogccse!littlei!arwen.i.intel.com!adams
From: adams@arwen.i.intel.com.ogc.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: High Volume Calles For New Approach
Message-ID: <440@gandalf.littlei.UUCP>
Date: 8 Dec 88 23:55:57 GMT
Sender: news@littlei.UUCP
Reply-To: adams@arwen.i.intel.com (Robert Adams)
Organization: Intel Corp., OMSO UNIX Development, Hillsboro, OR
Lines: 28

bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes:
|   There's another thing that would help a lot.  If the leaves only take groups
|   that people actually read then that amount of traffic is eliminated...
| 
|   My newsfeed has awarded "the most obfuscated sys line" prize...
|
|   ...If we started at the leaves (ssbn is
|   really a leaf even though we feed a couple of sites) and made up the
|   "obfuscated sys line" and sent it up, then our feeds could consolidate them
|   and cut out the groups they don't need to carry.

An idea that crossed my mind was to have an ihave/sendme
protocol that not only sents the messageID of articles but also the
newsgroup.  Then the receiving machine could decide if it wanted
the article by whether it already had it (check messageID) or
whether it wanted that newsgroup.  The checking for the newsgroup
could be just checking the sys file for what group to read or could
be calculated from subscribing information (gathered 'arbitron' fashion,
I guess).  Possibly the subscribing infomation could be derived from
whether downstream machines were asking for that newsgroup.

You could also send down the size of the article so that receiving
machine could decide whether to receive this article in this newsgroup
based on available disk space.

    -- Robert Adams
    ...!tektronix!reed!littlei!adams | adams@littlei.hf.intel.com
    ...!uunet!littlei!adams          | adams@littlei.uu.net