[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mailing list vs "the futur"

Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 07:04:36PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 27 August 2018 12:28:35 Dan Ritter wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:37:48AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > [...] NNTP is a huge
> > > bandwidth hog regardless of how much of it your isp accepts for
> > > spooling on local disk to serve you.

This keeps coming up stubbornly in this thread: it is wrong.
NNTP, with its flood-filling algorithm, is fairly efficient
wrt. link usage. It was developed in a time when bandwidth
was expensive, and folks back then were no idiots, mind you.

> >
> > This is not the case.
> >
> > The NNTP server-to-server algorithm is analogous to rsync,
> > if you think of:


Yes, kind of.

> My knowledge is based on a conversation I had with my then isp in about 
> 1993 or so, so its entirely possible that the protocol has been changed 
> since then.

NNTP hasn't changed much since 1986, no.

> What they had then struck me as very very wastefull of 
> resources. Because I was such a PITA, they actually built another 
> machine for NNTP and had at&t bring in another oc3 circuit to feed it.

No. I guess the thing is that *because* NNTP was comparatively efficient,
it was used for the "big stuff" (alt.pic.* anyone?). The point is that,
to reap the benefits of its efficiency, a provider has to set up an
NNTP server and do its care and feeding. And perhaps prune the newsgroups
it's ready to carry. A full feed was, for that time, taxing, but not
because NNTP was inefficcient, but because that's where the big stuff
was. No one mailed pictures or archives around (unless, that is, to
punish the occasional spammer: X11 sources were mailed around, if I
remember correctly)

Video streaming these days is much less efficient.

- -- t
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: