gnu (01/21/83)
Just to set the record straight, news from Usenet is mailed to the Arpanet group, and mail from the Arpanet group is posted to the Usenet newsgroup. Everything goes both ways without filtering or digesting (digestion?). Personally I don't object to Warren Montgomery (author of "yet another Unix Emacs") posting a single message to let people know his version exists. I do agree that the main focus of this group is Gosling's Emacs. If the Usenet wants discussions of other Emaces, and Arpanet folks object, we can fork off a subgroup that won't go to the Arpanet. Reply by mail to me, not to the group, please, unless of general interest. John Gilmore, Sun Microsystems (on Arpanet: sun!gnu@Berkeley, or you might try gnu@sun.uucp)
z (01/23/83)
It would seem to me that the volume of mail to net.emacs is small enough so that discussion of all EMACSes really should go here. Therefore, while it certainly makes sense for Gosling's mailing list to be gatewayed to net.emacs, I'm not sure if it makes sense to gateway things the other way around as well. I suppose this really depends on the feelings of the people on Gosling's mailing list. It would seem to me to be reasonable to have the list on CCA EMACS gatewayed through here as well (one way); there's usually only one message out on this list every few weeks, so users of other EMACSes would not require excessive use of their 'n' key. In addition, I for one would be interested in continuing news about Montgomery's EMACS, and I imagine that there must be others out there who feel the same way. There are also other Unix EMACSes around (such as Elle), and this group is certainly the logical place for news about them. If ever a large volume of news (i.e., many articles a day) developed for somebody's EMACS, then I think subgroups might be in order. But at this stage, I think it would be unfair to the rest of Usenet to clutter up the net with any more little-used groups. Steve Zimmerman decvax!cca!z