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