>I see the on-again off-again server is up once more.
>Is there any official explanation of the abysmal behavior of late. I'm
>wondering if the lack of new mail is due to the fact that most of the
>users have simply given up due to unreliable service. 

Well you're welcome to offer to pay the US$500 per month that I was quoted to
provide a reliable co-located server with a good link.

The previous news server software was crashing and every time it did it took
this machine down with it, usually corrupting the filesystem in the process.
Each time this happened I had to drive a distance of over 50 miles to go and
fix it.

I find it incredible that people such as yourself feel that you have a right to
bag a service that SOMEONE ELSE (i.e. me) is paying for. I would have been
totally justified in just taking it down entirely, instead of spending all the
time needed to install and configure a different news server and write perl
scripts to copy the articles between the db format of the old one and of the
new one.

Your claim that you 'know' we are volunteers doesn't cut any ice. Your comment
about 'abysmal' behaviour is insulting and unreasonable given the efforts and
cost we have incurred in keeping it going to date. The fact that you know
you are addressing it to volunteers only makes it worse. We have no obligation
whatsover to provide you with any sort of news service - even an abysmal one.

-- Admin

Post a reply to this message