🚀 go-pugleaf

On 21 Jul 1997 09:45:51 GMT,
Dave Nagle <dnagle@wt.com.au> wrote:
:dbromage@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage):

:> That is most definately wrong. First class news servers DO accept
:> cancels. This removes the spam from the filespace allocated to
:> news, thus reducing the cost to the customers.
:One of the features of a first class news site is that they set 
:their own policy on what they will carry.
:A policy of ignoring cancels does not mean that the readers have 
:to be overwhelmed by spam.
:Sites can do their own spam detection using software like the 
:Zippo Hippo [1]. Responsible sites should at the very least be 
:using something like this to keep an eye on their outbound feeds.
:Sites can also use NoCeM on spool. This technique uses trusted
:third parties to advise that posts exceed agreed upon limits and 
:should not be carried.


The sheer number of cancels is also becoming unworkable.

thingy.apana.org.au has an NNTP daemon running, with a small
selection of newsgroups.

There is a megabyte of applicable cancels daily. Trying to process
these would make thingy melt :-)

NoCeM reports contain many message-IDs per report and are much more
workable.

Cancels are on the way out.



-- 
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/
http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~gerard/  (European mirror)
http://www.prysm.net/~cuthulu/fun/  (US mirror - fast!)