tgl@zog.cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane) (07/24/89)
In article <KARL.89Jul23183041@dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu>, karl@dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: > The gnu.* newsgroups are considered to be, even now, echoes of the > still-existing mailing lists. Every gnu.* group, with the exceptions > of gnu.config and gnu.test, has a mailing list equivalent. > > There is also still some argument going on about continuing the > gateway, because of the _large_ number of misguided, flammable, and > generally distracting postings which manage to creep into all corners > of gnu.*. If that's the case, why aren't the gnu.* groups moderated groups? Moderate 'em, set up an automatic mechanism so that mailing list messages get sent out as approved articles, and forward Usenet postings to the appropriate mailbox at MIT. They can filter 'em as they wish... There are some groups of this type already; comp.risks, for example. -- tom lane Internet: tgl@zog.cs.cmu.edu UUCP: <your favorite internet/arpanet gateway>!zog.cs.cmu.edu!tgl BITNET: tgl%zog.cs.cmu.edu@cmuccvma
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (07/24/89)
In article <5617@pt.cs.cmu.edu> tgl@zog.cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane) writes:
...why aren't the gnu.* groups moderated groups?
Only gnu.announce is moderated, and it broke new ground with the
moderated alias list on the Usenet "backbone" sites (for mailpaths).
It was the first non-Usenet group to achieve such status, and it paved
the way for alt.gourmand and alt.sources.amiga.
We'd prefer not to moderated the rest of the groups because that would
generate excessive load on the moderator (generally all the same
person), and would mean requesting yet more cooperation from the
non-backbone regarding non-Usenet aliases. We'd prefer, for now, not
to impose any more on Usenet than we are.
Yes, Peter, this alias is the one place where gnu.* rides on the back
of Usenet. I forgot about it before - sorry!jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (07/25/89)
Followups are directed to gnu.config, since this is really about how the gnu mail-to-newsgroups gateway works (or could work). In article <KARL.89Jul23183041@dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu>, karl@dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >> There is also still some argument going on about continuing the >> gateway [for the gnu.* groups], because of the _large_ number of >> misguided, flammable, and generally distracting postings which >> manage to creep into all corners of gnu.*. In article <5617@pt.cs.cmu.edu> tgl@zog.cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane) writes: >If that's the case, why aren't the gnu.* groups moderated groups? >Moderate 'em, set up an automatic mechanism so that mailing list >messages get sent out as approved articles, and forward Usenet >postings to the appropriate mailbox at MIT. They can filter 'em >as they wish... Good idea. And if all recipients of gnu groups add the line gnu %s@<whatever-machine>.ohio-state.edu to their mailpaths file, the existing gateway site at Ohio State can take care of everything with little change (no need for aliases at backbone sites). For 2.11 news, it must be patched to at least patchlevel 1 for this to work. We need to keep it clear that the alternate newsgroup heirarchies are independent, that discussion and decision-making in the news.* groups simply doesn't apply. This means it is misguided to propose an alt group in news.groups, or to debate whether the gnu.* groups are in the correct spirit of Usenet in news.admin. For this reason I'm taking this discussion to gnu.config. To this end, there should be a place for discussing the social and political issues that surround the GNU project, because, after all, these issues are the very reason FSF exists in the first place. Given this, it seems strange to argue that these discussions are only noise. If the gnu.* groups were moderated and there were also an unmoderated gnu.politics, it would not be possible to crosspost and those uninterested in the social issues discussion could unsubscribe. -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve C. Simmons) (07/25/89)
I've asked this before, and will probably ask again... Whatever happened to gnu.whatever, which would supposedly be the place for all the philosophical disucssions of gnu politics? My apologies if memory has failed me, but weren't there postings in gnu.gcc just before Usenix saying such a group (exact name unspecified) would be created shortly after a discussion there? Cripes, maybe we need an alt.gnu! :-) -- Steve Simmons scs@vax3.iti.org Industrial Technology Institute Ann Arbor, MI. "Velveeta -- the Spam of Cheeses!" -- Uncle Bonsai
bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (07/26/89)
In article <2334@itivax.iti.org> scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve C. Simmons) writes:
Whatever happened to gnu.whatever, which would supposedly be the
place for all the philosophical disucssions of gnu politics?
I just issued a newgroup for gnu.misc.discuss.