Soque (Enjoque) Pupette wrote:
> jet wrote:
>> In article <d51ndh$nsv$1@herekittykitty.databasix.com>, "Soque (Enjoque) Pupette" <soque@databasix.com> wrote:
>>> jet wrote:
>>> > In article <d51i98$lk4$7@herekittykitty.databasix.com>, God wrote:
>>> >> On Sun, 01 May 2005 03:20:11 GMT, jet@untool.net (jet) wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> >> >Why don't they go post in the alt.binaries.youth-and-beauty.* and
>>> >> >alt.binaries.aoi with the rest of the child porn traders? They've been
>>> >> >the accepted kiddie porn groups for as long as I can remember. That's
>>> >> >what they're -for-. Even alt.fan.air would do, if the prefer stealth
>>> >> >binaries.
>>> >>
>>> >> Unacceptable. afa is not a binaries group, stealth or otherwise.
>>> >
>>> > You are incorrect. Alt.fan air, along with alt.fan.prettyboy,
>>> > alt.oyp.sworp and alt.svens have been stealth child porn groups
>>> > since at least 1998 and most of the alt.fan.*, alt.als.* and
>>> > alt.mag.* hierarchies are considered general stealth binaries
>>> > hierarchies.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that binaries in those groups and hierarchies
>>> are not misplaced? If so, I worry about the scaleability issues
>>> that arise from a policy that condones stealth binary groups.
>>>
>> I don't think I said there was a "policy that condones stealth binary
>> groups". The word "stealth" might indicate the opposite.
>
> And the word "misplaced" might indicate that the binaries belong
> in binary groups.
>
>> It's just that
>> it's been common knowledge that those particular groups are stealth binary
>> kiddie porn groups for many years and collectors subscribe to servers
>> that don't filter the binaries.
>
> I'm not trying to make this point from the view of the collectors.
> I'm looking at it from an _operational_ standpoint. Specifically,
> I'm considering the impact of misplaced binaries (regardless of
> content) on non-binary news sites.
>
>>
>>> How many stealth binary groups does a text-only newsadmin have
>>> to consider in their configs to effectively manage their
>>> bandwidth and spool space?
>>
>> I would imagine a text only server 'clean-feeds' out all binaries, no
>> matter where they occur.
>
> Filtering binaries after receiving them is sub-optimal from a
> bandwidth management perspective. It's far more efficient for the
> peers not to feed the text-only news sites binaries in the first
> place. A news site that offers non-binary feeds needs to specify
> which sub-hierarchies to exclude from the feed. Using the "!" symbol
> to indicate negation, the config line might contain somehting like:
>
> alt.*,!alt.binaries.*
>
> but, if it's necessary to add !alt.mag.*,!alt.fan.*,!alt.als.* plus
> a splattering of single groups and add new (misplaced binary) groups
> as they appear then there is extra administrative overhead to
> endure as text sites ask their peers to adjust their config.
>
> Plus, with this config, the other (text) users in those sub-hierarchies
> that aren't in a misplaced binary group suffer inhibited propagation
> to text sites.
>
> I submit that misplaced binaries have an adverse impact on propagation
> (a core operational consideration) for _other_ (text) users.
>
>> TMK, nobody is issuing bin-cancels outside of
>> the Big 8, anymore.
>>
>> I'm sure someone in policy could give you a better answer, or you could
>> look up the previous discussions. <shrug>
>
> I've seen the discussions. I'm countering (in a content neutral
> manner) your argument that these misplaced binaries should
> be allowed because they've been doing it for a long time.
Why dont you and your bloody boring words just fuck off? Same goes for the
rest of ya. Christ, what a tedious bunch of wankers. Go on, fucking shoo.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
|