lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) (02/10/90)
In article <161@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> sob@bcm.tmc.edu writes:
[[ ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ]]
I've received 6 of these, as well as three newgroups for comp.sys.concurrent.
Not a word of explanation. What's going on here?
--
Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.comdan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Dan Schlitt) (02/10/90)
In article <1990Feb9.174809.15759@vicom.com> lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes: :In article <161@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> sob@bcm.tmc.edu writes: : :[[ ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ]] : :I've received 6 of these, as well as three newgroups for comp.sys.concurrent. :Not a word of explanation. What's going on here? :-- :Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.com I sent mail and got back an answer indicating complete indifference to the fact that he is flooding the world with these control messages. -- Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu City College of New York dan@ccnysci.uucp New York, NY 10031 dan@ccnysci.bitnet (212)690-6868
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (02/10/90)
In article <1990Feb9.200939.24813@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Dan Schlitt) writes: | I sent mail and got back an answer indicating complete indifference to | the fact that he is flooding the world with these control messages. Are they legit? Does he have any athority, such as a vote I missed, or is he just a person who dislikes these groups and want them to go away everywhere? -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
sob@watson.bcm.tmc.edu (Stan Barber) (02/11/90)
Some eight months ago, I as moderator of comp.sys.masscomp proposed in
news.groups and comp.sys.masscomp to change the name to comp.sys.concurrent.
This was to reflect that masscomp no longer exists as such since it merged
with concurrent.
I received many responses saying to do it and don't bother with a vote since
it is a name change, not a new group.
At that time, I did send out rmgroup and newgroup to make that happen. For
some reason, the distribution mechanism failed and some parts of the country
did not get the change. I received mail from folks asking me if the newsgroup
was dead, etc. So, I decided to try the rmgroup/newgroup again.
Since many of you don't read the newsgroup, you are probably unaware of the
reasoning.
--
Stan internet: sob@bcm.tmc.edu Director, Networking
Olan uucp: {rutgers,mailrus}!bcm!sob and Systems Support
Barber Opinions expressed are only mine. Baylor College of Medicine" Maynard) (02/11/90)
In article <1990Feb9.200939.24813@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Dan Schlitt) writes: >In article <1990Feb9.174809.15759@vicom.com> lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes: >:In article <161@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> sob@bcm.tmc.edu writes: >:[[ ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ]] >:I've received 6 of these, as well as three newgroups for comp.sys.concurrent. >:Not a word of explanation. What's going on here? >I sent mail and got back an answer indicating complete indifference to >the fact that he is flooding the world with these control messages. sob@bcm.tmc.edu is Stan Barber, who's the UUCP Map Coordinator for Texas. That doesn't sound like him. I don't know what's going on either, but I'll try to find out. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Free the DC-10!
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (02/15/90)
In article <169@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> sob@watson.bcm.tmc.edu (Stan Barber) writes: |Some eight months ago, I as moderator of comp.sys.masscomp proposed in |news.groups and comp.sys.masscomp to change the name to comp.sys.concurrent. |This was to reflect that masscomp no longer exists as such since it merged |with concurrent. | |I received many responses saying to do it and don't bother with a vote since |it is a name change, not a new group. | |At that time, I did send out rmgroup and newgroup to make that happen. For |some reason, the distribution mechanism failed and some parts of the country |did not get the change. I received mail from folks asking me if the newsgroup |was dead, etc. So, I decided to try the rmgroup/newgroup again. Probably B news sites ought to add the line "comp.sys.masscomp comp.sys.concurrent" to your News "aliases" file, and C news sites do the analogous action in their "active" files. -- (__) Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario w \@@/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _/ \_ "Hearts of stone, doo-de-wahh, will never break" - The Charms
mcb@presto.IG.COM (Michael C. Berch) (02/16/90)
Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, Calif. USA In the referenced article, sob@watson.bcm.tmc.edu (Stan Barber) writes: > Some eight months ago, I as moderator of comp.sys.masscomp proposed in > news.groups and comp.sys.masscomp to change the name to comp.sys.concurrent. > This was to reflect that masscomp no longer exists as such since it merged > with concurrent. > > I received many responses saying to do it and don't bother with a vote since > it is a name change, not a new group. > > At that time, I did send out rmgroup and newgroup to make that happen. For > some reason, the distribution mechanism failed and some parts of the country > did not get the change. I received mail from folks asking me if the newsgroup > was dead, etc. So, I decided to try the rmgroup/newgroup again. Thanks for the clarification. The rmgroup message was shown as from "bcm!usenet", which didn't ring a bell at all, so we tossed it, figuring it was just some local site that messed up and leaked a control message. It might be useful to announce changes like this to news.announce.newgroups (which many/most site admins read, I think). I did notice that the mailpath backbone sites do know seem to know about the new name yet, or at least the ones I checked (ames.arc.nasa.gov and ucbvax.berkeley.edu). So people trying to post to c.s.concurrent are probably out of luck until this gets coordinated. (I assume there is a mailing list of sites that act as mailpath backbones.) -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (02/20/90)
I'd like to second one of Michael Berch's comments about this whole affair. I believe the most important use of news.announce.newgroups is to announce configuration changes such as the ones that Stan made. news.announce.newgroups has a nice low volume, so that news administrators (among others) can see what's happening in the hierarchies without having to wade through the cruft in news.groups. Of course, this presupposes that people will send me those changes. -- Eliot Lear [lear@TURBO.BIO.NET]
mcb@presto.IG.COM (Michael C. Berch) (02/20/90)
In the referenced article, jba@harald.ruc.dk (Jan B. Andersen) writes: > > I sent mail and got back an answer indicating complete indifference to > > the fact that he is flooding the world with these control messages. > > Should we begin to flood his/her's (sob@bmc.tmc.edu) mailbox for a change? Please do not flame sob@bmc.tmc.edu (Stan Barber). Besides being the moderator of comp.sys.concurrent, he has made significant contributions to the Usenet software (e.g., porting NNTP) and has been an active, helpful Net citizen for a long time. Stan posted an article explaining the masscomp-->concurrent newsgroup name change and explained that it was gone over in the c.s.masscomp newsgroup. That article may not have reached your site yet. I agree that the rmgroup was somewhat confusing, especially since it issued from "bmc!usenet" instead of (say) "sob@tmc.edu", but I think the issue is sufficiently explained at this point (though there is still the problem of the mailpaths backbone sites). -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb
dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Dan Schlitt) (02/20/90)
In article <Feb.19.11.12.11.1990.1125@turbo.bio.net> lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes:
:I'd like to second one of Michael Berch's comments about this whole
:affair. I believe the most important use of news.announce.newgroups
:is to announce configuration changes such as the ones that Stan made.
:news.announce.newgroups has a nice low volume, so that news
:administrators (among others) can see what's happening in the
:hierarchies without having to wade through the cruft in news.groups.
:Of course, this presupposes that people will send me those changes.
:--
:Eliot Lear
:[lear@TURBO.BIO.NET]
Absolutely! I do group changes by hand. I don't want random messages
from off-site changing my active file. A message in
news.announce.newgroups would have explained things to my
satisfaction. Even an explaination in the control message would have
done the job. But why the multiple control messages? If one doesn't
do the job why expect that three will do it better.
--
Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility
dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu City College of New York
dan@ccnysci.uucp New York, NY 10031
dan@ccnysci.bitnet (212)690-6868