[Freeciv] Re: NNTP server?

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tobias Brox <tobiasb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> > Just noticed that about 30% of people want an NNTP server for a
> > gateway on the freeciv lists.  I can set one up if people want it but
> > I am curious to know why, and if they want it to become part of the
> > Usenet at large or just a private server.
> 
> NNTP is generally a better distribution mechanism than SMTP for mailing
> lists, firstly because it's distributed and hence can reduce the bandwidth
> needed¹, secondly because the data is available on request rather than
> always.

Well thanks for your concern about my bandwidth, but it is OK as it is
now :-)  That said, if it makes it more convenient for people to
access this way (one potential might be for accessing archives, I
suppose) we can do it.  But it's a lot of work to set up (this server
doesn't currently have any nntp server on it) and a bit of
an unusual request (none of the other mailing lists hosted here want
that) so I just wanted to find out a bit more detail first :-)

> In addition ... even though the distinction between a mail client and a
> news client often might be somewhat missing - generally the news clients
> are better suited for such discussions.  For one thing, threading is
> done easier as the References header is pretty standard with NNTP, and
> usually  delievered with (too much anyway) redundancy, while quite a lot
> of SMTP clients have different ways (if any) to give away the linking
> information.

Yes.  Sigh.  Why can't everyone use a good mail client like GNUS? :-)
Actually GNUS seems to do a very good job threading mailing list
discussions, even with people that do not use GNUS.  I have no idea
how well other clients fare, but you're probably right there.

> -- 
> ¹ of course only if the NNTP server gets a part of a larger network,
> like UseNet - and it is of course possible to set up more clever 
> distribution patterns through SMTP as well.

Actually if it becomes part of Usenet, then NNTP becomes vastly less
efficient than SMTP because the articles are copied so many times to
so many different servers where, statistically, only a minority of
people read them.  That is, the articles are copied whether anyone
wants to see them or not, then copied again when the client really
does want to see them.  Plus you get spam problems.

-- John