peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/16/90)
In article <EMV.90Jul15230502@urania.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: > In article <ZTO4QNG@ggpc2.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > No. Sometimes crossposting, even on followups, is the appropriate thing to > > do. It keeps a discussion that fits into more than one group from turning > > into two (or more) equal-sized discussions in as many groups. > The question is not what is to be possible, the question is what is to > be easy. I don't think that's the question at all. If you make followups to multiple groups hard it's the same thing, from the point of view of avoiding multiple copies of the same flame war^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion in a bunch of separate groups, as making it impossible. The first time someone does a followup to one group by default you'll have two conversations on the same topic, rehashing the same points over and over again. After a while you see free-floating riots^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussions taking over 3 or 4 groups. > That which is presented to the user should have reasonable but > configurable defaults. Which is the case now. > Followups would go to one of news.software.{nn,rn}, gnu.emacs.{gnews,gnus}, > or whatever other group handles the spillover of news.software.policy as > opposed to news.software.technology. As long as you're considering a technological fix to a political problem it's appropriate to crosspost the discussion to both places. If it becomes obvious that this is one or the other we can narrow the scope. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>