Article View: NET.news
Article #20saving transmissions
From: ucbvaxmark
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1981 20:32
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1981 20:32
19 lines
1003 bytes
1003 bytes
I object to the 3 stage protocol as suggested by Jerry. I thought of the same thing long ago, and rejected it on the grounds of long delays. Since one site often only polls another once a day, it would take 3 days to get a message transmitted. In chains, it would take 2 days per hop. Thus, mail from ucbvax to, say, harpo could take over a week to get through. If netnews is to be used for an interactive medium for discussion, a reply could take over a week to get back, with a 2 week turnaround. Clearly this is worst case, and a delay of a few days is more likely than a week. But there would be a significant lag, and conversations would be way out of sync with each other. Other, unanticipated delays are possible too. Like this note, which is in reply to something 2 weeks old. Mark
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<anews.Aucbvax.1742>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!markShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!duke!decvax!ucbvax!mark From: ucbvax!mark Newsgroups: NET.news Subject: saving transmissions Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1981 20:32:39 +0000 Message-ID: <anews.Aucbvax.1742>