tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/08/89)
In <1989Oct7.185952.16953@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack):
DM> OK, so news2.11 junks articles with no valid newsgroups, C news passes
DM> them on. I can see arguments in favor of each strategy. With news2.11,
DM> it's possible to rmgroup a group and actually have it gradually disappear;
DM> with Cnews, everything still circulates unless you take steps to squash
DM> it in your sys file. On the other hand, with Cnews, a site has more
DM> trouble blocking transmission of a legit group that it doesn't like.
DM> Since I'm not overly concerned with newsgroup deletion but am concerned
DM> with the maximum propagation of "real" newsgroups, I suggest that the
DM> way C News does it is correct. Comments?
Since newsgroup deletion will always be a factor, and possibly more so
as the net expands and the proposals which started this thread include
deletion as necessary, I prefer the B News way of doing it. (POI:
rpi.edu runs C News.) Everyonce in a while I have to tell a site to
stop sending us talk.bizarre.nice or such, but since almost all of our
feeds are B News sites, all it takes is for them to rmgroup it locally.
If they were all C News, we'd still be passing around traffic for
bogus groups that none of us want. Now, in order to cure that, we'd
either have to throw more lines into the active file (to use the 'x'
flag) or more !patterns into the sys file. It shouldn't require that
additional effort to squelch the bogus groups.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))