Posting pictures on this group

"Marco Leon" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It's not so much the broadband connection that come into play with this
issue, though it is part of it. The main thing is the news servers desire
to
reduce storage on their servers. There are lots of USENET servers that
don't
even have the binary newsgroups because of the amount of storage
required.

Well, OK, then if not broadband, then the increasing availability of
cheaper storage. Regardless, I don't think a non-binary titled
newsgroup will ever reach a critical mass of images being uploaded to
cause an issue (especially given the relatively low volume of messages
this group gets).

The volume of posts that the flight simmer wannabe/troll would probably
exceed the minimal size a few images take up.

But you know what? It ain't worth arguing because it's not a big issue
for me.

Marco


The cost of storage has dropped but the amount of volume on USENET has
increased just as fast if not faster. Binaries are one reason for this
increase. Below are the DAILY volumes on USENET and the source of the info.

4.5 GB 1996-12 Altopia.com
9 GB 1997-07 Altopia.com
12 GB 1998-01 Altopia.com
26 GB 1999-01 Altopia.com
82 GB 2000-01 Altopia.com
181 GB 2001-01 Altopia.com
257 GB 2002-01 Altopia.com
492 GB 2003-01 Altopia.com
969 GB 2004-01 Altopia.com
1.30 TB 2004-09-30 Octanews.net
1.27 TB 2004-11-30 Octanews.net
1.38 TB 2004-12-31 Octanews.net
1.34 TB 2005-01-01 Octanews.net
1.30 TB 2005-01-01 Newsreader.com
1.67 TB 2005-01-31 Octanews.net
1.63 TB 2005-02-01 Newsreader.com
1.81 TB 2005-02-28 Octanews.net
1.87 TB 2005-03-08 Newsreader.com
2.00 TB 2005-03-11 Various sources

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
The cost of storage has dropped but the amount of volume on USENET has
increased just as fast if not faster. Binaries are one reason for this
increase. Below are the DAILY volumes on USENET and the source of the info.

4.5 GB 1996-12 Altopia.com
9 GB 1997-07 Altopia.com
12 GB 1998-01 Altopia.com
26 GB 1999-01 Altopia.com
82 GB 2000-01 Altopia.com
181 GB 2001-01 Altopia.com
257 GB 2002-01 Altopia.com
492 GB 2003-01 Altopia.com
969 GB 2004-01 Altopia.com
1.30 TB 2004-09-30 Octanews.net
1.27 TB 2004-11-30 Octanews.net
1.38 TB 2004-12-31 Octanews.net
1.34 TB 2005-01-01 Octanews.net
1.30 TB 2005-01-01 Newsreader.com
1.67 TB 2005-01-31 Octanews.net
1.63 TB 2005-02-01 Newsreader.com
1.81 TB 2005-02-28 Octanews.net
1.87 TB 2005-03-08 Newsreader.com
2.00 TB 2005-03-11 Various sources

Yeah, but you need to qualify "binaries." You know very well the
volume is more due to DVD and music posts rather than pictures. Good
research though.

"Marco Leon" wrote in message
ups.com...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
The cost of storage has dropped but the amount of volume on USENET has
increased just as fast if not faster. Binaries are one reason for this
increase. Below are the DAILY volumes on USENET and the source of the
info.

4.5 GB 1996-12 Altopia.com
9 GB 1997-07 Altopia.com
12 GB 1998-01 Altopia.com
26 GB 1999-01 Altopia.com
82 GB 2000-01 Altopia.com
181 GB 2001-01 Altopia.com
257 GB 2002-01 Altopia.com
492 GB 2003-01 Altopia.com
969 GB 2004-01 Altopia.com
1.30 TB 2004-09-30 Octanews.net
1.27 TB 2004-11-30 Octanews.net
1.38 TB 2004-12-31 Octanews.net
1.34 TB 2005-01-01 Octanews.net
1.30 TB 2005-01-01 Newsreader.com
1.67 TB 2005-01-31 Octanews.net
1.63 TB 2005-02-01 Newsreader.com
1.81 TB 2005-02-28 Octanews.net
1.87 TB 2005-03-08 Newsreader.com
2.00 TB 2005-03-11 Various sources

Yeah, but you need to qualify "binaries." You know very well the
volume is more due to DVD and music posts rather than pictures. Good
research though.


Of cause it is that doesn't change the fact that the newsgroup server
providers still have to more space to have binaries and virtually all of
them have decided against allowing binary data in the "text" newsgroups. DO
you expect them to check each file and see if it a picture of my airplane or
a copy of "Top Gun"?

Plus with the number of free website and photo upload places it just doesn't
make since to have to have the photo of my airplane stored on each and every
news server when I can upload it to a web site and post a link.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Of cause it is that doesn't change the fact that the newsgroup server
providers still have to more space to have binaries and virtually all of
them have decided against allowing binary data in the "text" newsgroups. DO
you expect them to check each file and see if it a picture of my airplane or
a copy of "Top Gun"?

Plus with the number of free website and photo upload places it just doesn't
make since to have to have the photo of my airplane stored on each and every
news server when I can upload it to a web site and post a link.

Well, if a newsgroup provider can only turn on/off binaries as a group,
then that makes sense. My point was that images in rec groups would add
a negligible volume. However. if that means allowing all binaries on
all text-only groups then I agree, that's a bad idea.

"Marco Leon" wrote in message
ups.com...
Well, if a newsgroup provider can only turn on/off binaries as a group,
then that makes sense. My point was that images in rec groups would add
a negligible volume. However. if that means allowing all binaries on
all text-only groups then I agree, that's a bad idea.

An ISP committed to the idea could easily implement a per-newsgroup policy.
In fact, they would probably simply flag the text newsgroup where binaries
are allowed as a binary newsgroup (there's no restriction on text messages
within a binary newsgroup).

The real issue is that there are genuine reasons for not allowing binaries
in a text-only newsgroup. It's much more wasteful than you seem to realize.

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" said:
"Marco Leon" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, if a newsgroup provider can only turn on/off binaries as a group,
then that makes sense. My point was that images in rec groups would add
a negligible volume. However. if that means allowing all binaries on
all text-only groups then I agree, that's a bad idea.

An ISP committed to the idea could easily implement a per-newsgroup policy.

And hire about 8 more full time news admins to keep these per-newsgroup
policy flags up to date.

In fact, they would probably simply flag the text newsgroup where binaries
are allowed as a binary newsgroup (there's no restriction on text messages
within a binary newsgroup).

Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
feeds with one configuration.

Oh wait, that's what we already do.



--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
chown -R us /yourbase
- Simon Slavin

In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
feeds with one configuration.

Oh wait, that's what we already do.

Circa 1996 there was a guy running a cancelbot on "large" binaries
in non-binary groups (Richard somethingorother). Is that still
happening or did he give that up?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
An ISP committed to the idea could easily implement a per-newsgroup
policy.

And hire about 8 more full time news admins to keep these per-newsgroup
policy flags up to date.

Well, I *did* say "committed to the idea". I'm not saying it'd be a *good*
idea, just that there's no reason it can't be done.

[...]
Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
feeds with one configuration.

Not if they want to implement a per-newsgroup policy, they couldn't.

Oh wait, that's what we already do.

Then you obviously don't implement a per-newsgroup policy. So?

Pete