snidely@omepd.UUCP (02/26/87)
In article <4556@brl-adm.ARPA> JLC3861%TAMVENUS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu writes: >Howdy, >Finally, on the subject of appropriate newsgroups raised earlier: some of >you may not know this, but this newsgroup is redistributed to ARPA and >BitNet sites as a mailing list known as Unix-Sources. In turn, our mail to >Unix-Sources gets ported to net.sources on USENET. I, for one, do not have >ANY access to USENET other then through remailers and redistributed lists. >I suspect many others are in this position too. So, before you criticize >someone for posting to the wrong newsgroup, ask: did that person have any >choice? For many of us the only way we can post is to go to net.sources - >net.sources.d and the comp.sources group are not available. > >Thanks, >John > We're all familiar with this go-around issue. It surfaces in several groups several times a year. Since the application of politeness has not solved the problem, maybe we need to look at the gateway software. Would it be possible to make changes in the gateway software such that detecting a keyword ("Keyword: discussion") in the header could gateway a message into the discussion sub-group rather than the "pure" group? I realize that the keyword might have to be somewhere other than the mail header when mailer restrictions are examined, but I'm sure that that issue can be worked out if we decide to pursue that route. Also, the exact keyword used can be negotiated. For ARPA-based followups, a newsgroup name might be useful. In fact, intelligent mail-reading programs might be able to use such a feature to give the appearance of seperate groups. Is this worth further investigation? dave on intelos (the wilds of Jones Farm) Thursday, 2.26