webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (01/03/88)
In article <22364@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes: >In answer to Mark Brader's question, my view is that using misc.misc >to replace newsgroups that your site doesn't get is defeating the >purpose behind having newsgroups in the first place. Newsgroups >are topic separators, and I expect to find germane articles in each >and every newsgroup that my site receives. ... >If there is a topic being discussed in a newsgroup I don't get, it >is pointless to try and use misc.misc to reach the audience of >people interested in that topic, because they're all (in theory) >reading the newsgroup I don't get. ... Well, a few of them are probably reading other groups as well and the more enlightened will keep an eye on misc.misc. While posting to the most specific group would get better results, when that isn't possible and the situation doesn't merit going to the effort of getting a more reasonable feed, it is difficult to see a posting to misc.misc as being ``pointless.'' > Newsgroups are the names of the discussion space. Ignore that, and > the network is doomed to death by uselessness. After all, what use > is a network in which you can't find what you're interested in (and > filter out what you're not interested in)? Well, back when everyone carried most groups this was the case, but that was awfully long ago. Nowadays, newsgroup names are simply ways for various systems to restrict traffic that they handle. While it sounds reasonable for a site to refuse to carry something like comp.mac.binaries if they have no use for it, such a refusal is a much more serious undermining of the validity of the name space than someone posting a Mac binary (disguised as a cat poem) to misc.misc. Each of these petty tyrants (both the ones who got into something they just couldn't afford and the ones who think there is too much ``junk'' in usenet) has decided to take Usenet and twist it into something that they like better and then impose their vision on their users and anyone else who is foolish enough to rely on them. The only fix I can see is to refuse to accept postings from sites that don't carry the full set of groups (thus emphasizing the different status) -- i.e., sites that carry the full complement of groups should only read from other sites that do the same (regardless of who they choose to write to). Of course, since moderated groups are handled via mail (and hence you can post to a moderated group whether you recieve it or not! -- and receive it whether your neighbors like it or not when the moderators choose to distribute via mail) they would not be covered (or coverable) by such considerations. ----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) Get the full usenet/altnet -- don't settle for cheap substitutes.
ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (01/04/88)
In article <693@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > The only fix I can see is to refuse to accept postings from sites that > don't carry the full set of groups (thus emphasizing the different Suppose we have (leaf)-->(link)-->(backbone) and (link) decides without asking (leaf) not to carry some newsgroup, (leaf) isn't to be allowed to post anything to any newsgroup? Save us from our "friends".
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (01/04/88)
In article <505@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>, ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > In article <693@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > > > The only fix I can see is to refuse to accept postings from sites that > > don't carry the full set of groups (thus emphasizing the different > Suppose we have (leaf)-->(link)-->(backbone) and (link) decides without > asking (leaf) not to carry some newsgroup, (leaf) isn't to be allowed to > post anything to any newsgroup? Save us from our "friends". Leaf can post anything that link is willing to carry. It is just that ``backbone'' shouldn't relay it any further since it was posted into an eratz alternate group system that is trying to use the same name space as the regular usenet group system. E.g., their misc.misc is a different group because they don't have a rec.arts.poems. If leaf want's to post into the ``real usenet'' then all it has to do is get a feed (or convince link that it is causing more trouble than it is saving). ----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) (01/05/88)
In article <505@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <693@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >> The only fix I can see is to refuse to accept postings from sites that >> don't carry the full set of groups (thus emphasizing the different >Suppose we have (leaf)-->(link)-->(backbone) and (link) decides without >asking (leaf) not to carry some newsgroup, (leaf) isn't to be allowed to >post anything to any newsgroup? Save us from our "friends". Go look in the installation documents Since back in the dark old days of v2.10 it has suggested establishing L type links with a nearby backbone ... SOLEY to make sure that your local articles were propogated. Bob. Eh? "refuse to accept ..." eh? maybe I'm missing some important context here but I don't see the purpose to your suggestion. -- <---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <---- or: {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- <---- Winter health warning: Remember, don't eat the yellow snow!
heiby@falkor.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (01/06/88)
Richard A. O'Keefe (ok@quintus.UUCP) writes: > Suppose we have (leaf)-->(link)-->(backbone) and (link) decides without > asking (leaf) not to carry some newsgroup, (leaf) isn't to be allowed to > post anything to any newsgroup? Save us from our "friends". There's a fairly simple fix for this problem. (leaf) talks to the admin over at (backbone) and tells him/her that the bum who administers (link) is dropping newsgroups. (leaf) and (backbone) then arrange things so that instead of having: (leaf)-->(link)-->(backbone) we have: (link)<->(leaf)<->(backbone) Of course, (leaf) is no longer a *leaf* and will probably be expected to pass along at least the newsgroups that (link) cut to the other sites that (link) feeds that want those newsgroups. (leaf) may not be willing or able to do this. Sorry, but that's just too bad. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Intel architectures build character."
ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (01/08/88)
In article <112@falkor.UUCP>, heiby@falkor.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: > Richard A. O'Keefe (ok@quintus.UUCP) writes: > > Suppose we have (leaf)-->(link)-->(backbone) and (link) decides without > > asking (leaf) not to carry some newsgroup, (leaf) isn't to be allowed to > > post anything to any newsgroup? Save us from our "friends". > > There's a fairly simple fix for this problem. > [His solution is for (leaf) to take over (link)'s role.] I see, it doesn't matter how useful my postings might be, if the guy upstream of me can't afford another disc drive, and I'm not rich enough to route everything through my machine, you want to muzzle me. Now *that* is censorship. Applying this rule would shut every University in Europe off the net, to start with, and most of the American ones. Save us from our "friends".
rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu (Frozen Wombat) (01/09/88)
In article <513@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >I see, it doesn't matter how useful my postings might be, if the guy >upstream of me can't afford another disc drive, and I'm not rich enough >to route everything through my machine, you want to muzzle me. Now >*that* is censorship. Applying this rule would shut every University in >Europe off the net, to start with, and most of the American ones. No, that's not censorship. That's the reality of a system where those who make the resources available are under no obligation to continue to do so, except the case of certain semi-commercial service providers. It is a frequent misconception of Usenet users that free access to the entire resources of the net is a "right"; it is in reality nothing of the kind. To rephrase this: you are entitled to whatever soapbox you can pay for; and I might let you use my soapbox for free. But if you do (use my soapbox for free), I reserve the right to pass traffic from you at my discretion. -- Rich Kulawiec, rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu, s.cc.purdue.edu!rsk PUCC Unix Staff
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (01/09/88)
In article <7979@e.ms.uky.edu>, david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) writes: > In article <505@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > >In article <693@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > >> The only fix I can see is to refuse to accept postings from sites that > >> don't carry the full set of groups (thus emphasizing the different > ... > Bob. Eh? "refuse to accept ..." eh? maybe I'm missing some > important context here but I don't see the purpose to your suggestion. My suggestion solves the problem of people posting to a group because it is the best fit of the groups they have available to them instead of being the global best fit in terms of the ``standard'' group set. The problem takes on many interesting aspects now that ``alternate'' news hierarchies are being encouraged. I am maintaining that there should be two levels of joining a news hierarchy. One level is ``browse'' where one news hierarchy accepts another on a read (and local discuss) basis and the other is ``conversation'' where two news hierarchies merge. When two news hiearchies merge, they in essence form a new news hierarchy that is the union of the two old ones. They only exist in conversation mode with other sites in the ``merger.'' A site would distribute anything it can find takers for but only accept from sites that carry a superset of the groups that it carries. This allows everyone to maintain the integrity of their local namespace. Alternatively, one could allow that there is no such thing as a improperly posted news message and that the purpose of newsgroups is not to tell the reader what they can expect to find, but rather to tell the poster something about the audience they can expect to be listening. So, if you want to talk with unix wizards about the in and outs of raising guppies, then there is nothing wrong with posting a message about raising guppies to unix-wizards. Thus, news groups take on more the feeling of clubs than of library categories. Within the traffic for each news club, other mechanisms could be used to distinquish topics under the assumption that people who join the club have access to the whole club. --------- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
heiby@falkor.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (01/10/88)
Richard A. O'Keefe (ok@quintus.UUCP) writes: > I see, it doesn't matter how useful my postings might be, if the guy > upstream of me can't afford another disc drive, and I'm not rich enough > to route everything through my machine, you want to muzzle me. Now > *that* is censorship. If this is censorship, then it is self-censorship. If you do not believe that you can afford the resources for sufficient computer hardware to carry the (for example) poetry newsgroup, then it is not *my* fault! If your feed doesn't believe they can afford it, then it is not *my* fault! If you can't manage to find a feed somewhere else that believes they can afford it, then it is not *my* fault! If some site in Europe or California or wherever is having problems getting a feed of some group or set of groups, then they can look for another feed. Maybe they'll have to pay for some long distance phone calls to get it. That's not censorship. (I imagine that) The Chicago Tribune can't afford the space to publish a regular column that I would write on the subject of 12th century beer. I'm not rich enough to begin publishing a newspaper, so you want to muzzle me. Now *that* is censorship. (huh??) No, that is economics. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Intel architectures build character."
gypsy@c3pe.UUCP (the virtually invulnerable gypsyroach) (01/10/88)
<FLAME ON> What is WITH you people?!? Have you all been completely spoiled by having newsgroups?!? If someone wants to post something, and THEY have no news- group for it, why shouldn't they post it to what is the only relevant news- group for them?!? READ THE SUBJECT LINE, AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT IT THEN FOR CHRISSAKES SKIP THE ARTICLE INSTEAD OF GENERATING A LOT OF ARTICLES I DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT HOW YOU DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT ANYTHING THAT ISN'T "MISC"!!! <now I expect to be flamed by atheists who don't think my religious reference is appropriate and Christians who object to my using profanity. FINE. Not only am I a net.amazon, I am a net.masochist. I LIKE being flamed!> USE THE POWER OF YOUR INDEX FINGER! <FLAME OFF> (personally, I don't see why we can't have poems about cats in misc.misc., since I don't see how you can get much more misc. than cats. So there.) **************************************************************** * Some just sat there; others exploded like little bombs. * * (If you can identify the source of this, * * PLEASE email and tell me!) * * gypsy @ uunet!rlgvax!dolqci!c3pe * ****************************************************************
rblieva@cs.vu.nl (Roemer Lievaart) (01/12/88)
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) typed (on the subject of censorship):
+---------------------------------------
| No, that is economics.
+---------------------------------------
But what is it not to have someone post an article on misc.misc on
a subject of which he doesn't receive the appropiate newsgroup?
{I don't care whether that's correct english.}woods@hao.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (01/13/88)
In article <933@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> rblieva@cs.vu.nl (Roemer B. Lievaart) writes: >heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) typed (on the subject of censorship): >+--------------------------------------- >| No, that is economics. >+--------------------------------------- > >But what is it not to have someone post an article on misc.misc on >a subject of which he doesn't receive the appropiate newsgroup? It's called common courtesy and respect for the wishes of his site and/or intervening sites. If his site or his feed site has chosen not to get a certain newsgroup, there is probably a good reason for it (and even if there isn't, so what? They still made the choice not to get that newsgroup). At any rate, that choice should be respected. It has nothing to do with censorship; it's common courtesy. A lot of people seem to keep forgetting: access to USENET is not a right, it is a privilege. Your site (and the site(s) that feed it) have chosen to provide you with that privilege (or at least part of it). They have done you a favor by doing so. They don't OWE you USENET access. The very LEAST you can do is cooperate with any access limitations they care to impose. As long as EVERYONE at your site operates under the same limits, it isn't censorship. --Greg
rblieva@cs.vu.nl (Roemer Lievaart) (01/14/88)
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) typed: +--------------------------------------- | In article <933@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> rblieva@cs.vu.nl (that's me folks!) writes: | >heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) typed (on the subject of censorship): | >+--------------------------------------- | >| No, that is economics. | >+--------------------------------------- | > | >But what is it not to have someone post an article on misc.misc on | >a subject of which he doesn't receive the appropiate newsgroup? | | It's called common courtesy and respect for the wishes of his site | and/or intervening sites. If his site or his feed site has chosen not +--------------------------------------- So, if you do have access to the net, but not to good.wine, because of *economical* reasons (as was pointed out by Ron Heiby), you are respecting the wishes of your site and/or intervening sites by strictly shutting up about wine? It's as logical to me as a cow is to a PDP-11, on a bicycle, though. With bananas, but peeled. Purple striped. Or do you think your site really wants you to shut up about wine, because they don't have enough money?? You're confusing the *reason* of a policy with a policy. Roemer. [ the example of wine is, ofcourse, ridiculous, so be smart and don't flame on THAT! Flame on anything else... ]
dww@stl.UUCP (01/16/88)
In article <112@falkor.UUCP> heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: #Richard A. O'Keefe (ok@quintus.UUCP) writes: #> Suppose we have (leaf)-->(link)-->(backbone) and (link) decides without #> asking (leaf) not to carry some newsgroup, (leaf) isn't to be allowed to #> post anything to any newsgroup? Save us from our "friends". # #There's a fairly simple fix for this problem. (leaf) talks to the admin #over at (backbone) and tells him/her that the bum who administers (link) #is dropping newsgroups. ... But what about when it IS the backbone that isn't passing the newsgroup? This discussion started because of postings of poems in misc.misc from the UK. The European gateway (mcvax) has to restrict groups coming in because of high trans-atlantic transmission costs. Thus rec.poems does not exist in Europe. Nothing stops people here posting poems - although there is no .poems. group in Europe, our national and continental general groups (uk.general/uk.followup and eunet.general/eunet.followup) run at a level where a few poems would be quite acceptable. But if only posted there, US (& can, oz, etc) readers would not see them. So the question is, do you (collective) want to see such postings from Europe or not? If so, then misc.misc probably IS the most appropriate group we share in common. If not, then I hope they'll still be posted within Europe. If the volume of poems was very high, and each set off lots of counter- arguments - eg if someone were to post on politics or religion or the relationship between Marxism and Atheism to misc.misc that would be another matter of course - such controversial articles would always go to the talk.religion/politics groups, wouldn't they, especially when posted in the USA where such groups have wide coverage (:-)). -- Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (01/17/88)
In article <610@acer.stl.stc.co.uk>, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: > ... > But what about when it IS the backbone that isn't passing the newsgroup? > This discussion started because of postings of poems in misc.misc from the UK. > The European gateway (mcvax) has to restrict groups coming in because of high > trans-atlantic transmission costs. Thus rec.poems does not exist in Europe. > ... > would not see them. So the question is, do you (collective) want to see > such postings from Europe or not? If so, then misc.misc probably IS the > most appropriate group we share in common. Are you claiming: a) that posting a poem from Europe to NA is cheaper than posting a poem from NA to Europe or b) that the wishes of mcvax should simply be bypassed by posting into misc.misc. perhaps we should all cross post everything to misc.misc. actually, news.misc would probably be a better place to cross post miscellaneous news (although apollo sources belong in news.groups). ------- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
heiby@falkor.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (01/18/88)
David Wright (dww@stl.stc.co.uk) writes: > But what about when it IS the backbone that isn't passing the newsgroup? > This discussion started because of postings of poems in misc.misc from the UK. > The European gateway (mcvax) has to restrict groups coming in because of high > trans-atlantic transmission costs. Thus rec.poems does not exist in Europe. My understanding was that the transatlantic link would carry any newsgroup that the European Usenet Community was willing to pay for. I heard at one point that the bicycles newsgroup was being sent over for a single individual, who payed its communication costs. If there are a couple of people in Europe that are really keen on poetry, then it probably makes sense for them to ante up and pay to transport the group. As I said in a previous posting, it's just economics. If poetry is not worth paying to transmit it, then it shouldn't be transmitted. It should not get a "free ride" in misc.misc. If Europe wants poetry, Europe can have poetry. If I am completely wrong, and mcvax is evil and nasty and dropping poems because of a lack of appreciation for art or poor social graces, then I make this offer: *ANY* overseas site (not just in Europe) that wants to poll me in Chicago to pick up the poetry newsgroup should send me email, and I'll set up such a feed. I do not charge for feeds, but you must pay the phone bills. There! Now, you can't talk about censorship or restrictions or evil nastyness. All you can talk about is whether or not it is worth paying real money to transport poems over long distances. Now, please go away and decide locally whether or not it's worth it to you using a local distribution and let us all know what you finally decide on. Thanks. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Intel architectures build character."
nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Prime Minister) (01/19/88)
In article <610@acer.stl.stc.co.uk>, dww@stl.UUCP writes: > But what about when it IS the backbone that isn't passing the newsgroup? > This discussion started because of postings of poems in misc.misc from the UK. > The European gateway (mcvax) has to restrict groups coming in because of high > trans-atlantic transmission costs. Thus rec.poems does not exist in Europe. Well, you could always try to set up an alternate feed. I know there are a couple groups I read where I'd like to see some UK input (rec.arts.drwho comes to mind! :-). I'll make this deal with you... If you want rec.poems or whatever, I'll let you poll one of my machines which has it, so long as you also take rec.arts.drwho to England....
rblieva@cs.vu.nl (Roemer Lievaart) (01/20/88)
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) typed: +--------------------------------------- | In article <610@acer.stl.stc.co.uk>, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: | > ... | > But what about when it IS the backbone that isn't passing the newsgroup? | > This discussion started because of postings of poems in misc.misc from the | > UK. | > ... | > such postings from Europe or not? If so, then misc.misc probably IS the | > most appropriate group we share in common. | | Are you claiming: | a) that posting a poem from Europe to NA is cheaper than posting a poem | from NA to Europe | or | b) that the wishes of mcvax should simply be bypassed by posting | into misc.misc. perhaps we should all cross post everything to | misc.misc. actually, news.misc would probably be a better | place to cross post miscellaneous news (although apollo sources | belong in news.groups). | | ------- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) +--------------------------------------- No. I'm really sorry to say this, but what you typed is rubbish. What was asked, is not: "shall we make misc.misc into a poems-group" but "do you really mind if we in europe SOMETIMES post a poem onto misc.misc." Just face it: lots of americans liked the poems, and there are probably more people skipping this discussion or the discussion on N-Ireland than people who skipped the poems. And these discussions cost the net a lot more than those few poems. Just because someone said "I hate poems" and noone yet said: "I hate the N-Ireland- discussion" suddenly it is SO bad to post a poem to misc.misc!!! Well, let ME tell you something. I HATED the sports-discussion that was on misc.misc a while ago. Now that was a lot of articles! My 'N'-button is lame, by now... So now anyone who posts anything about sport is damned for ever. C'mon people... let's face it, it's just a prejudice against poems that is much more important than all the "reasonable" arguments brought up yet. And I don't think mcvax wants no poems; I just think it is trying to save money. Which is quite something different. But let's keep happy anyway... Roemer. -- Put in your :-) wherever you feel the need.
sph@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (S.P.Holmes) (01/21/88)
Expires: Sender: Followup-To: In article <118@falkor.UUCP> heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: >David Wright (dww@stl.stc.co.uk) writes: >> But what about when it IS the backbone that isn't passing the newsgroup? >> This discussion started because of postings of poems in misc.misc from the UK. Yes remember this discussion, well perhaps I can give a perspective from this side of the lake which might explain why some european postings appear in strange newsgroups. I started work, i typed 'rn' and up popped a list of newsgroups. that - to me is my world perspective on the net -. I see some subset of the total groups, but don't know what is outside that subset. Therefore when I post my soon to be written masterpiece on liontaming, I post to misc.misc since we don't get, and I don't even know if there is rec.sports.liontaming (and how can I be sure that there's a rec.arts.dangerous to crosspost to). So this guy writes some poems, and puts them in the only place where they can't cause offence (as far as he can see). He's certainally not crossed any of the major rules in the newusers announcement (No heavy crossposting, no heavy quoting etc. It really depends upon your perception of the world. Intelligent people will take the most appropriate means availible to them. Hannibal crossed the alps using elephants, helicopter gunships would've been better; carthage didn't hae helicopter gunships. Mr Clark from Bath posts his poems to misc.misc, rec.poems would be better; the english don't have rec.poems. NB mcvax has never told us that peoms are contrabrand info they appear willing to deliver. AS a counter example, we get a lot of for sale notices which have leaked across the atlantic. U.S.A. is a big place, and I assume that distribution loses a lot of its meaning when most news is from the one nation anyway. Hope this can promote some international understanding. -- Steve Holmes | Noel Coward : "Would you object if I smoked" Room 109a | E-mail sph | Sarah Bernhardt : "I wouldn't care if you burned" Phone ext 7681 or 3682 |
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) (01/29/88)
In article <4217@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> sph@ukc.ac.uk (S.P.Holmes) writes: |In article <118@falkor.UUCP> heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: |>David Wright (dww@stl.stc.co.uk) writes: |>> But what about when it IS the backbone that isn't passing the newsgroup? |>> This discussion started because of postings of poems in misc.misc from the UK. | |Yes remember this discussion, well perhaps I can give a perspective |from this side of the lake which might explain why some european |postings appear in strange newsgroups. | |Therefore when I post my soon to be written masterpiece on liontaming, |I post to misc.misc since we don't get, and I don't even know if there is |rec.sports.liontaming (and how can I be sure that there's a rec.arts.dangerous |to crosspost to). | |So this guy writes some poems, and puts them in the only place where they |can't cause offence (as far as he can see). He's certainally not crossed |any of the major rules in the newusers announcement (No heavy crossposting, |no heavy quoting etc. People may be getting a little confused about the existence of a newsgroup versus its propagation. One of the things I've been wondering about for a long time over this discussion, is why Europe doesn't have the same (with some local variations) list of newsgroups as in North America? The only caveat being that there is no *transport* between Europe and North America. Even if there might be relatively little traffic in some of the groups not currently in place. Thus, over there, you would have a place to post your liontaming masterpiece, or the gentleman from Bath would have rec.poems to post to. But, neither of them would be seen over 'ere. And vice-versa for North American posters. Connecting the two would be a simple matter of turning on a "sys" entry somewhere on the normal cross-Atlantic feed, OR, setting up some other partial feed somewhere. Politically, I would think that it would require someone willing to pay the trans-Atlantic transport cost, *plus* some agreement (a vote) on both sides of the pond to allow the additional traffic over intra-continental links. Thus, if the cost of transmitting stuff to Europe abruptly dropped, or everybody got very interested in international poetry, there would be very little difficulty in merging the two geographically-isolated, but isomorphous networks. Further, it doesn't particularly require an identical newsgroup hierarchy, some could be coalesced, and some could simply be aliased. It appears that Australia has some sort of equivalent setup to what I suggest. This of course is probably a silly suggestion if the reason for Europe's lack of rec.poems is intra-Europe load over and above just trans-atlantic expenses. -- Chris Lewis, Spectrix Microsystems Inc, UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo, lsuc, yunexus}!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955