geoff@utcs.UUCP (08/15/86)
utcs is running C news, which has implemented some of the policy in B 2.11 news. One notable feature is that, in order to prevent cross-postings such as (in the brave new world) comp.unix.wizards,rec.auto (yes, I have seen the equivalent old-style cross-posting), B 2.11 and C news insist that all newsgroups in the Newsgroups: line must be in the same "newsgroup class" (i.e. must all start with the same word). This means that cross-postings such as ont.general,tor.general will be quietly dropped by any B 2.11 or C news site (currently including utcs and soon to include utzoo). This feature will spread as more sites pick up B 2.11 or C news. -- Geoff Collyer utzoo!utcs!geoff, geoff@cs.toronto.cdn ``Lack of planning on your part does not justify an emergency on mine.''
msb@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (08/15/86)
Geoff Collyer (geoff@utcs.UUCP) writes in ont.general: > utcs is running C news, which has implemented some of the policy in B > 2.11 news. One notable feature is that, in order to prevent > cross-postings such as (in the brave new world) "comp.unix.wizards, > rec.auto" ... B 2.11 and C news insist that all newsgroups in the > Newsgroups: line must be in the same "newsgroup class" (i.e. must all > start with the same word). This means that cross-postings such as > ont.general,tor.general will be quietly dropped ... This is a FEATURE? I can see that a site which receives only comp, or only rec (!), might want to reject such an article, but why on earth should a site that receives both comp and rec want to reject it? If it is an attempt to keep articles that are really rec (or talk) out of the comp classification where they will get wider distribution, it is terribly misguided ... there is nothing to stop people from simply posting them twice, and the same social mechanisms for control will apply as now. On the other hand, when an article is legitimately cross-posted -- such as this one, which is going to ont.general (ont = province of Ontario) where the point was raised, and net.news where it should have been raised FOR DISCUSSION BEFORE implementing such a radical change... well, it will also have to be posted twice, and that's a pain to those reading both places. Geoff's signature quote was: > ``Lack of planning on your part does not justify an emergency on mine.'' I'm supposed to plan for quiet additions of misfeatures? I want this changed, FAST, before 2.11 and C news do become widely installed! Mark Brader
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (08/19/86)
Perhaps ont.general isn't the right place to continue this discussion,
but prohibiting cross-topgroup cross-postings sounds like an inane
and regressive step to me. I can think of many useful cases for
such postings, and I have seen many such postings (as well as
having posted several myself). I agree there is a danger with
present implementations of 2.10.2 news in that a second newsgroup
can be stripped from an article which then makes its way back to
a site which supports the deleted group. But this, to me, suggests
that the fix is to allow locally-nonexistent groups to exist on
a Newsgroups line, filtering them out for followups only.
Why is 2.11 initiating this? And why is C news following?
(The second question is easier to answer, I suppose.)
Who is in charge of setting the standards for 2.11?
Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
--
{ ihnp4!utzoo seismo!mnetor utzoo hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave