home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!manuel.anu.edu.au!coombs!phone
- From: phone@coombs.anu.edu.au (matthew green)
- Newsgroups: alt.irc
- Subject: Re: Bots, Newsgroups, Protocols, Whatever
- Date: 20 Dec 92 05:40:14 GMT
- Organization: Australian National University
- Lines: 21
- Message-ID: <phone.724830014@coombs>
- References: <Dweiss-071292185149@chiba.hughes.american.edu> <Byx0Bz.1or@news.iastate.edu> <1gm7g8INN2u3@manuel.anu.edu.au> <1gnmo0INN4lf@iraul1.ira.uka.de>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.76.2
-
- s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
-
- >In article <1gm7g8INN2u3@manuel.anu.edu.au> titus@coombs.anu.edu.au (titus chiu) writes:
-
- >>>idle: Why are so many of you /away for extended periods of time?
- >>>Arent you just as much strain on the net as an idle bot? I have heard
- >>
- >>yes that is correct, an idle user does use just as much bandwidth as an
- >>idle bot, which is closed to zilch (since it is idling) .. but of course
-
- >except for the PINGs... depending on your particular client-server
- >connection, these can be a problem (especially when some sort of
- >dial-up lines are involved.)
-
- And except for the fact that every time a server splits off, it has to be
- told of this user again.. also for the clients with a notify command..
- I guess thats no traffic though..
-
- phone..
-
- say NO to non-local operator KILLS..
-