dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (12/17/89)
In article <299@usenix.UUCP> usenet@usenix.UUCP (USENET News Administration)
does a newgroup.
No discussion in news.groups. No discussion in comp.org.usenix.
Just a newgroup message. This is not alt or bionet or inet where
certain people can create groups without asking. What's going on?
Unless someone can convince me that this is both genuine and legitimate
I'll send out an rmgroup.
Maybe the article is a forgery. But if so, it's a good one: the path looks
right, and the article id (299) is close to the most recent article id from
usenix that I can find (296). Of course all that means is that a forger
would have to be able to access uunet, and know news well - cuts down the
possibilities to about a thousand people!
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
Living in a country without a written constitution means having to trust in
the Good Will of the Government and the Generosity of Civil Servants.brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (12/17/89)
I think then when you have a group that does have somebody responsible for it, such as comp.org.*, moderated groups etc., then that somebody should be able to create a subgroup without the annoying and wasteful process of a survey/vote. It sure saves a lot of time and fuss, and it doesn't confuse the namespace any more than it already is. In fact, I think that we should delegate semi-moderators in charge of many of the larger groups who would have the authority to control the subspace, adding and deleting groups within it, without putting everything to the committee of 500. I suppose it might be a good idea to have chances announced a few days in advance, so that anybody with a serious objection (ie. a lot more than "I don't like the name") can MAIL in, but that's about it. Bravo to comp.org.usenix.roomshare for getting the ball rolling. Anybody want to volunteer to take charge of comp.sys.ibm.pc? -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
shore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore) (12/18/89)
[] It's not a forgery. Take it up with lou@usenix.org. -- Melinda Shore shore@mtxinu.com Mt Xinu ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore
brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor) (12/19/89)
We ignored the creategroup here. No fuss, no screaming. It just didn't happen. - Brian
mcb@presto.IG.COM (Michael C. Berch) (12/19/89)
In article <2579@.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: > In article <299@usenix.UUCP> usenet@usenix.UUCP (USENET News Administration) > does a newgroup. > > No discussion in news.groups. No discussion in comp.org.usenix. > Just a newgroup message. This is not alt or bionet or inet where > certain people can create groups without asking. What's going on? > Unless someone can convince me that this is both genuine and legitimate > I'll send out an rmgroup. While it may technically violate the new group creation guidelines, we may wish to recognize an exception to them, that the responsible party for *.org.* newsgroups has the informal power to manage the namespace below *.org.xxx, so long as he/she works in concert with the central namespace authorities (i.e., the newgroup czars) and does not abuse the authority so delegated. The number of newsgroups may soon become so large as to require significant delegation in management of the namespace. There may need to be a "comp.sys.*" coordinator or a "rec.games.*" coordinator... -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb
news@mikebat.UUCP (News Administration) (12/21/89)
> > No discussion in news.groups. No discussion in comp.org.usenix. > > Just a newgroup message......... What's going on? > > Unless someone can convince me that this is both genuine and legitimate > > I'll send out an rmgroup. > > While it may ... violate the ... guidelines, we may wish to recognize ... > that the responsible party for *.org.* newsgroups has the informal power > to manage the namespace below *.org.xxx OK I'm very new at all this. I've read the documentation that comes with b-news2.11 and it talks about setting NONEWGROUP or NOTIFY but nothing about all this protocol concerning groups and stuff. Can I define groups for internal consumption. By the end of next year I plan to have four machines at various sites in my company and very much want to use the net news mechanism to get things out to employees. I also want us to be connected to the net. I DON'T want to bring the wrath of the net on my shoulders because I'm doing things which really have no significance outside my own organization. Can I or can't I do thing for my own consumption without creating undesired effects on the rest of the net. Please send any e-mail to uunet!wshb!michaelb -- Michael Batchelor / KA7ZNZ uunet!wshb!mikebat!michaelb Gorbachev is certainly not a Stalinist, but he is also just as certainly NOT a Jeffersonian democrat. We should examine his motives just as coldly as he is examining ours. --- Richard Nixon, Time, December 18, 1989.
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (12/29/89)
In article <Dec.18.16.45.35.1989.21766@presto.IG.COM> mcb@presto.IG.COM (Michael C. Berch) writes: >In article <2579@.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: >> In article <299@usenix.UUCP> usenet@usenix.UUCP (USENET News Administration) >> No discussion in news.groups. No discussion in comp.org.usenix. No announcement in news.announce.newgroups... >> Just a newgroup message. >> Unless someone can convince me that this is both genuine and legitimate >> I'll send out an rmgroup. Please DO. I was just too apathetic to do it myself (I figured I didn't need to add to the expected flood of rmgroups). Genuine or not, it's not legitimate. Not even USENIX deserves special recognition. (BTW, neither of my sites honored the newgroup) >While it may technically violate the new group creation guidelines, we >may wish to recognize an exception to them, that the responsible party >for *.org.* newsgroups has the informal power to manage the namespace I can see it now... Call for discussion--comp.org.aquaria This newsgroup is proposed to take advantage of the exception allowing org groups to do as they damn well please in the mainstream namespace. No thank you. -=EPS=-