lyndon@ncc.UUCP (05/21/87)
Does anyone maintain a list of the "official" can.* newsgroups? When setting up a new site I sometimes wonder if there is any point in creating some of the groups I have seen referenced in other sites active files (e.g. can.map - I've never seen a posting to this group in the last year). Maybe someone should do a periodic checkgroups based on this (non-existent?) list? Lyndon Nerenberg alberta!ncc!lyndon
thompson@dalcs.UUCP (05/29/87)
The traffic seems so minimal maybe we should just drop the
can.* groups and use the can distribution.
--
Michael A. Thompson, Dept. Math, Stats, & C.S., Dalhousie U., Halifax, N.S.
thompson@dalcs.uucp From Bitnet or Uucp
thompson@cs.dal.cdn From Bitnet or Cdn
thompson%dalcs.uucp@seismo.arpa From Arpalyndon@ncc.UUCP (05/31/87)
> The traffic seems so minimal maybe we should just drop the > can.* groups and use the can distribution. This would work, however it could get a bit confusing for a lot of the people using the network. It is an unfortunate fact of life that most people don't understand (or feel comfortable with) the distribution mechanism. Besides, if we did that we would leave Henry out in the cold (assuming utzoo is still running 2.9 - they were last I heard... ?)
clarke@utcsri.UUCP (06/01/87)
In article <2567@dalcs.UUCP> thompson@dalcs.UUCP (Michael A. Thompson) writes: > The traffic seems so minimal maybe we should just drop the can.* groups and > use the can distribution. This seems reasonable from the point of view of the level of traffic. The trouble is that there are occasional outbursts of discussion -- at a level sometimes of 10 or so articles daily -- that are likely to be uninteresting or even annoying to many readers. Usually these can be canned in "can. politics" after a while, so I think that group serves a useful purpose about once a year. I speak from somewhat embarrassing experience here, for I have not only been annoyed but have myself caused annoyance. I know I should show a little more self-control, but one reason for subdividing newsgroups is to provide auto- mated self-control, isn't it? -- Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 (416) 978-4058 {allegra,cornell,decvax,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/01/87)
> The traffic seems so minimal maybe we should just drop the > can.* groups and use the can distribution. There are three reasons not to do this. One is that not all the can.all groups correspond precisely to their network-wide counterparts. Another is that they flow by different routes -- this can be done with distributions, but it's harder. The third is that everybody understands newsgroup names and almost nobody understands the exact workings of distributions, so there is a serious user-interface problem there. -- "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
dave@lsuc.UUCP (06/01/87)
In article <2567@dalcs.UUCP> thompson@dalcs.UUCP (Michael A. Thompson) writes: > > The traffic seems so minimal maybe we should just drop the > can.* groups and use the can distribution. No, that's a good reason for *keeping* them. can.* provide a way of communicating with others in Canada, since they're low-volume and therefore rarely unsubscribe to. I've had a number of people tell me they find my postings about income tax to can.general useful. There would be no way of reaching these people otherwise. Few Canadians read misc.taxes, since its content is almost entirely U.S. tax-related. We've also had interesting discussions in can.politics over the years. Our records indicate the can.* groups are: can.general Articles of general interest to all Canadian sites can.ai Artificial intelligence discussions can.jobs Job announcements, requests, etc. can.politics Canadian politics The only one of these which might be a candidate for removal is can.ai, which receives a quarterly posting about the Canadian AI newsletter and not much else. Presumably all can.ai readers subscribe to comp.ai anyway. David Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada -- { seismo!mnetor cbosgd!utgpu watmath decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (06/03/87)
> Our records indicate the can.* groups are: > > can.general Articles of general interest to all Canadian sites > can.ai Artificial intelligence discussions > can.jobs Job announcements, requests, etc. > can.politics Canadian politics Here's what the active file on ncc says: can.jobs 00023 00023 y can.general 00124 00112 y can.politics 00182 00181 y can.ai 00006 00002 y can.ai.cscsi 00000 00000 y can.followup 00000 00000 y can.map 00000 00000 y There are probably others... Rather than everyone posting their active file entries, if you have a can.* group not in the above list, mail me the line from you active file. I will collect a list a post it next week. Then maybe we can come to an agreement as to what the valid groups are. Lyndon Nerenberg Nexus Computing Corporation alberta!ncc!lyndon
tech@auvax.UUCP (06/03/87)
Who cares what the groups are? With such low volumes we can all include
can.all and post to can.general. If the can.general posting is inappropriate
and there are any followups than somebody will suggest another home for such
articles.
********* 73
********** Richard Loken VE6BSV
. ****
.. **** Athabasca University
.... **** Athabasca, Alberta Canada
..........**** ihnp4!alberta!auvaxkevinc@auvax.UUCP (06/03/87)
As a reader of the can.* groups and especially the tax tips posted I would like to voice my vote for not eliminating these groups as they do provide a valuable forum for discussions of interest to the Canadian environment. ihnp4!alberta!auvax!kevinc Kevin Crocker
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (06/03/87)
From: tech@auvax.UUCP (Richard Loken) >Who cares what the groups are? With such low volumes we can all include >can.all and post to can.general. If the can.general posting is inappropriate >and there are any followups than somebody will suggest another home for such >articles. The problem is that if your system does not have a valid entry for the followup group, the article will be trashed (you won't see it, and it won't get forwarded to your neighbors). Sort of like posting to au.general with a distribution of 'can'... From: kevinc@auvax.UUCP (Kevin Crocker) >As a reader of the can.* groups and especially the tax tips >posted I would like to voice my vote for not eliminating these >groups as they do provide a valuable forum for discussions of >interest to the Canadian environment. I see no point in eliminating the groups. Let's just make sure we agree on what the groups /are/.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/07/87)
> Besides, if we did that we would leave Henry out in the cold (assuming > utzoo is still running 2.9 - they were last I heard... ?) No, not 2.9! A mixture of C news and B 2.10.0. Soon to be all-C, as soon as Geoff and I get our yet-to-be-done lists under control... -- "There is only one spacefaring Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology nation on Earth today, comrade." {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
dave@lsuc.UUCP (06/08/87)
In article <1433@ncc.UUCP> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >Here's what the active file on ncc says: > >can.jobs 00023 00023 y >can.general 00124 00112 y >can.politics 00182 00181 y >can.ai 00006 00002 y >can.ai.cscsi 00000 00000 y >can.followup 00000 00000 y >can.map 00000 00000 y > > I will collect a list >a post it next week. Then maybe we can come to an agreement as to >what the valid groups are. Make that "should be", rather than "are". Lyndon, I believe your collection is out of date, in that we (the Canadian Usenet) made some decisions a couple of years back to cut out some groups, and I believe rmgroups were actually sent out (anyone remember for sure? Henry? msb?) At any rate, the fact your highest article number for the last 3 groups is 0 kinda suggests they're not widespread :-) My personal view and suggestion for what we should have: can.jobs - useful can.general - useful can.politics - useful These are "useful" in the sense that people will read them but not their netwide counterparts. can.followup - obsolete, since the "general/followup" pair no longer exists netwide, and since can.general can comfortably hold followup discussions can.map - not needed, since comp.mail.maps will have its Canadian postings from utai!path. Anyone who specifically wants this can find it easily. can.ai.cscsi - I believe it was agreed this is too specialized and wasn't being used. The only remaining question is can.ai. If there is any group of people who read can.ai but who would not read comp.ai, due to some relevance of AI in Canada that isn't relevant to the AI community in general (I don't believe this is the case), then the group should remain. David Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { seismo!mnetor cbosgd!utgpu watmath decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave
msb@sq.UUCP (06/09/87)
To someone's article... > > Our records indicate the can.* groups are: > > can.general, can.ai, can.jobs, can.politics ...Lyndon Nerenberg (lyndon@ncc.UUCP) replies by showing these additional lines in his site's active file: > can.ai.cscsi 00000 00000 y > can.followup 00000 00000 y > can.map 00000 00000 y Notice the zero article counts on all of these. In fact, these three groups were removed after the LAST time that the question "What can.* groups exist and should they all still exist?" was asked. I remember this quite clearly, because I was the one who initiated the question and collected responses to the rmgroup proposals (under the Subject line "Let's clean up Canada"). It must have been about 2 years ago. The first poster's records are correct and complete. Mark Brader, utzoo!sq!msb "Don't be silly -- send it to Canada" Toronto -- British postal worker
michael@orcisi.UUCP (06/10/87)
> Who cares what the groups are? With such low volumes we can all include > can.all and post to can.general. So what's the fuss? Let's leave well enough alone.