Document: FSC-0093
|  Version:  002
|  Date:     14 September, 1996
  Title:    Reduced seen-by lines
  Author:   Frank Ellermann, 2:240/5815.1


 Reduced seen-by lines
 Frank Ellermann, 2:240/5815.1


 Abstract
 --------
 A way to save great amounts (estimated 10 %) of echo mail traffic by
 reducing "seen by" informations, compatible with existing echo mail
 tossers conforming to FTS-0004.


 Definitions
 -----------
 A thorough understanding of FTS-0004 is required, the reader should
 be familiar with PATH and SEEN-BY lines in echo mail, illegal and
 legal echo mail distribution topologies, i.e. dup-rings, as well
 as with some pre-requisite knowledge of zones, 4D and 2D addresses,
 and the "sticky" 2D notation in PATH and SEEN-BY lines.

 PATH: path lines as specified in FTS-0004
 FSB:  full seen-by informations as specified in FTS-0004
 TSB:  tiny seen-by informations as mentioned in FTS-0004, see below
 RSB:  reduced seen-by informations specified below
 dupe: multiple arrival of the same echo mail (e.g. different paths)


 Examples of echo mail distribution topologies
 ---------------------------------------------
 In all examples a) to d) echo mail entered at system 1 is sent to
 systems 2 and 3 with FSB 1 2 3. Therefore system 2 (3) knows, that
 system 3 (2) already got this mail, topology a) is perfectly legal.

| a) 1 - 3  b) 1 - 3  c) 1 - 3  d) 1 - 3
    | /       |   |     | / |     | X |
    2         2 - 4     2 - 4     2 - 4

| In the examples b) and c) both systems 2 and 3 forward all mails
 from system 1 to system 4, these topologies contain a dup-ring and
 are therefore illegal following FTS-0004.

 The examples a) and d) show fully connected polygons with three or
 four nodes. In example d) a mail entered at system 1 is sent to
 systems 2, 3, and 4 with FSB 1 2 3 4. The topologies a) and d) are
 perfectly legal, there are no dupes caused by distribution.

 In example b) each mail entered at system 1 reaching system 4 via
 system 2 carries FSB 1 2 3 4, therefore system 4 will not forward
 such mails to 3. Using TSB at system 2 the same mails would carry
 TSB 2 4, therefore system 4 would forward them to 3 as dupes.

 Note that illegal topologies as in example b) and c) cause dupes
 with either FSB or TSB. The real problem with TSB is example b),
 as it allows for loop mails on the dup-ring 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - ...
 and vice versa, if no additional checks for dupes are employed.

 With RSB (specified below) systems contained in the PATH are not
 stripped from the seen-by informations, therefore RSB avoid loop
 mail much like FSB.


 FSB algorithm
 -------------
 1) add own system to the PATH.
 2) all area links not contained in the FSB qualify as recipients.
 3) add own address(es) to the FSB set if not already contained.
 4) add recipients to FSB, sort FSB, forward mail to recipients.


 TSB algorithm
 -------------
 1) add own system to the PATH.
 2) all area links not contained in the TSB qualify as recipients.
 3) strip old TSB and start new TSB with own address(es).
 4) add recipients to TSB, sort TSB and forward mail to recipients.


 RSB algorithm
 -------------
 1) add own system to the PATH.
 2) all area links not contained in the RSB qualify as recipients.
 3) strip RSB addresses not matching an address in the PATH, then
    add own address(es) to the RSB set if not already contained.
 4) add recipients to RSB, sort RSB and forward mail to recipients.


 PATH considerations
 -------------------
 There are 2 problems with the PATH kludge as specified in FTS-0004:

 First like in the FSB the addresses in the PATH are 2D, and having
 the same 2D address in different zones is possible. Therefore zone
 gates are required to use the TSB algorithm. Unfortunately the PATH
 is forwarded without regarding zone gating, therefore detection of
 loop mail based solely on the PATH could be erroneous.

 Further FTS-0004 (written 1989) expects future echo mail tossers to
 implement PATH support, but doesn't require this support from old
 implementations. Strictly spoken the PATH is still only an option.

 In some areas of FidoNet (e.g. in zone 2) at least all non-terminal
 nodes are required to fully support the PATH line, therefore this
 problem will probably not show up in praxis. Of course any tosser
 implementing the RSB feature is required to fully support the PATH.


 Summary
 -------
 To show the benfits of RSB compared with FSB assume the following:

 An echo mail travels from node to echo hub, host, major star, echo
 host, hub, and finally arrives at a recipient. Each routing system
 has 10 links, i.e. FSB at the recipient contain 51 addresses, about
 400 characters, but RSB only 15 addresses in about 150 characters.

 Therefore in an echo mail with 2500 characters about 10 % of its
 size can be reduced using RSB in favour of FSB. If this estimation
 is applicable on world wide FidoNet echo mail traffic, RSB can save
 us an immense amount of costs.

 This document can be adopted by the FTSC as FTS, in this case it
 has to be regarded as an addition to FTS-0004 with the extension,
 that all non-terminal nodes are required to support PATH lines as
 specified in FTS-0004.

 For additional informations (e.g. aspects of zone gating) feel free
 to send mails to Frank Ellermann 2:240/5815 or [email protected]

- eof -

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.altexxanet.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.