Alternatives to a local Usenet server
davis at nod.bms.com
Wed Aug 24 10:37:02 EST 1994
In this discussion of using WWW clients to read bionet.* where
bionet.* is not propogated, it is important to remember that these
clients still require an NNTP server that carries the bionet
hierarchy. If you have that then any newsreader that supports NNTP
(and I understand that most do (I know GNUS does.)) can be used to
read bionet. So there is nothing magical about WWW clients for news
reading other than the ability to follow embedded HTML links.
I commend the bionet staff for offering to provide NNTP service from
their site; however, long distance NNTP connections can be slow.
Thus, I think there is a lot to be said for increasing the "regular"
propogation of the bionet.* hierarchy. Not just so that every
freshman can join in (as one poster viewed it), but so that all of the
downstream scientists can have the advantages of a Usenet connection
Which brings me to a comment on the Una/Dave debates. I, for one, do
not think there are angels or devils on either side of these debates.
I think, however, that bionet.* will not gain propogation by being
openly disdainful of Usenet "policy" as some posters have seemed. I
don't think we should count on security through obscurity either. If
our practices are such that they would draw the ire of sysops who are
propogating bionet.* without much scrutiny, then eventually they will
find out and there goes the feed. Saying that, I don't think that the
current rules exceptions for the bionet.prof-society hierarchy should
be irksome to many.
So I wish you all
Malcolm E. Davis
Macromolecular Modeling Email : davis at nod.bms.com
Bristol-Myers Squibb Phone : 609-252-4324
P.O.Box 4000 FAX : 609-252-6030
Princeton, NJ 08543-4000 Office : LV H.3812
Disclaimer: I speak for myself only. (Of course, you're free to listen. :-)
More information about the Bioforum