{Spam?} Re: Proposing peer Network support and software support

[Bill Davidsen]

The Doctor wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 09:51:41PM +0200, Marc Stürmer wrote:
>   
>> Am Montag 01 Oktober 2007 schrieb The Doctor:
>>
>>     
>>> Look as if port 119 operators are getting rare.
>>>       
>> Could be, then again not. 
>>
>>     
>>> Why did they not let me know earlier?
>>>
>>> Still the new policy is that I am ready to peer with anyone
>>> as long as all entries on a push-push basis is correct.
>>>
>>> So yes to the peer.
>>>
>>> Why INN?  Becuase we wish to contribute to
>>> its success by offering good solid research and multipeering is the way
>>> to go.
>>>
>>> Maybe I shouls not be that narrow, but I am
>>> an Open Source supporter.
>>>       
>> Well there's at least another opensource news product some of the bigger sites 
>> are using: Diablo. Beside of that there are many commercial ones (Dnews and 
>> so on). 
>>
>> But yes, Opensource rocks. :)
>>
>>     
>
> Diablo must be better than Cyclone.
>
> Still I am an INN support.
>
> I will look at diablo at another point in time.
>
>   
Having looked at Diablo I have to conclude several things, (a) it is 
capable of being faster and more scalable than INN, and (b) the 
documentation on getting it working right suck rocks off the bottom of 
the ocean! INN is easy to understand and configure, and IMHO the main 
thing which is wrong with it is expire, which sort of drives people to 
Cyclone.
> Getting back to the point,
>
> let us all NNTP network together.
>  
>   
I like having configs in separate files, it make learning parts of it 
easy (in a multi-admin situation) so people can diddle one thing and not 
mess up another. Mind you, a nice graphical configuration tool would not 
be rejected by me, if I ever have time to do a perl/Tk project that's it.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979