Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!oliveb!olivey!jerry
From: jerry@olivey.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: NNTP vs Cnews (was: Re: Cnews is not for me)
Message-ID: <46555@oliveb.olivetti.com>
Date: 13 Aug 89 23:56:01 GMT
References: <2828@ndsuvax.UUCP> <1989Aug12.221624.12153@utstat.uucp> <1894@ucsd.EDU> <1989Aug13.071802.5187@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: news@oliveb.olivetti.com
Reply-To: jerry@olivey.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre)
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 13

In article <1989Aug13.071802.5187@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>There is a fundamental tradeoff here which simply can't be escaped:
>efficient processing of large amounts of news requires amortizing setup
>overhead over more than one article, while lightning-fast propagation
>requires processing each article as it arrives.  You just have to decide

Is there a reason that NNTP can't insert the batch headers and pass the
news to the processing portion (recnews?) via a pipe instead of a file?
In that way a single setup overhead would cover the entire NNTP session.
By using a pipe instead of a temporary file the delay between
transmission and appearing in the history file could be minimized.

					Jerry