Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth

[Paul Vixie <vixie () as vix com>]

avg () exigengroup com (Vadim Antonov) writes:

> ...
> In other words - USENET cannot be fixed with technological improvements as 
> long as the root problem (admission control) is not solved.  Improving 
> transmission or storage systems would only let spammers to send more spam 
> for free.

...which is why my proposal didn't involve multicast and assumed that each
newsgroup would be authoritatively sourced by a well known server or mirrored
cluster of servers.  spam or offtopic postings, to be deleted, would only
need to be deleted in that one place.  then the hierarchical nntpcache graph
would simply "not find" the trash rather than needing to be told to remove it
as is done today with "full nntp" servers.

the other motive here is implicit moderation: no newsgroup which could not
find a sponsoring server or mirrored cluster could continue to exist; any
such server or cluster which was known to never remove trash would
eventually become uninteresting to discerning parties (e.g., me) while still
being completely usable by undiscerning parties.

> Therefore, i'd say it is time to declare USENET defunct. It was fun while
> it lasted.

"death of usenet predicted.  film at 11."