bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (11/15/89)
I put up a Call for Discussion for a proposed newsgroup. The message never made it to news.announce.newgroups (which has no new messages since before posting), but part of it -- a small part -- somehow survived distribution to another newsgroup, where it caused some confusion. Am I in the administrator's lull period? Perhaps he's away. Should I repost, or what? Bob Jacobson Human Interface Technology Lab Univ. of Washington 206-543-5075
bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (11/15/89)
In article <14571@well.UUCP> bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) writes: > >I put up a Call for Discussion for a proposed newsgroup. The >message never made it to news.announce.newgroups (which has no >new messages since before posting), but part of it -- a small >part -- somehow survived distribution to another newsgroup, >where it caused some confusion. Am I in the administrator's >lull period? Perhaps he's away. Should I repost, or what? > >Bob Jacobson >Human Interface Technology Lab >Univ. of Washington >206-543-5075 Greg Woods has contacted me and assures me that the Call has been posted (it's for a new, proposed sci.virtual-worlds conference). I still can't find it on The WELL and the Univ. of Wash. systems, but we're working on it. Any clues as to what may have happened are welcome. Bob Jacobson Human Interface Tech Lab Univ. of Wash.
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (11/16/89)
In article <14572@well.UUCP> bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) writes: >In article <14571@well.UUCP> bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) writes: >> >>I put up a Call for Discussion for a proposed newsgroup. The >>message never made it to news.announce.newgroups I did post the message. It turns out that the Newsgroups: and Distribution: headers were corrupted due to an excessive number of newsgroups cross-posted to, and the resulting too long Newsgroups: header line. It went out with a Newsgroups: header of only news.announce.newgroups, but the Distribution: header was totally munged, which probably explains why it didn't get very far. I have reposted the article with the headers corrected. My apologies for not noticing this the first time. But it does bring up a point. Generally speaking, it really isn't necessary to cross-post your proposal to 45 groups. I can't imagine a situation where more than 10 or so would be required. Please try to limit the number of groups cross-posted to. --Greg
bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (11/20/89)
I appreciate Greg's comments regarding excessive cross-posting of announcements of proposed newgroups. However, I think his warning overstated our cross-posting of the notice in question. We didn't cross-post to 45 newsgroups; it was more like 10. If that overdrives the system, perhaps someone should be concerned. My apologies again to Greg for any misunderstandings. Bob