rusty@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU (06/29/89)
Why are there these two newsgroups? I notice that about 75% of the articles that are posted to comp.emacs are about gnu emacs, and about 99% of those are also posted to gnu.emacs. I think that I shall propose to the usenet overlords that the gnu.emacs newsgroup be deleted.
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (06/29/89)
gnu.emacs is gatewayed bi-directionally to info-gnu-emacs@ai.mit.edu.
comp.emacs is gatewayed from info-gnu-emacs but not back into the
mailing list.
The reason that there is such a high crossposting percentage between
the two groups is because people that send to the list have their
messages crossposted for them. Other users like myself will post
elisp to both groups because there are some people who can only be
reached through the USENET lines in comp.emacs and others who read
only the mailing list.
As it says in every article posted to a gnu.* group from the mail
side, GNUS Not USENET. Proposing anything to "the usenet overlords"
about the gnu.* groups will mean little because the gnu hierarchy,
like bionet, alt, biz, and the inet, is not within the normal
jurisdiction of USENET. They merely utilize the same transport
mechanism. If you do end up deciding to propose the deletion of
gnu.emacs, do not be surprised to find your effort unsuccessful.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
"I realize the Internet isn't the whole world, but it is the center of it."
-- Greg Woodsrlk@think.com (Robert Krawitz) (06/29/89)
In article <8906282347.AA00345@garnet.berkeley.edu>, rusty@GARNET writes:
]Why are there these two newsgroups? I notice that about 75% of the
]articles that are posted to comp.emacs are about gnu emacs, and about
]99% of those are also posted to gnu.emacs.
gnu.emacs is intended solely for discussion of gnu emacs. comp.emacs
is intended for discussion of all emacses
]I think that I shall propose to the usenet overlords that the
]gnu.emacs newsgroup be deleted.
I don't believe that the backbone cabal controls the gnu hierarchy. I
believe that the FSF controls it.
--
ames >>>>>>>>> | Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com> 245 First St.
bloom-beacon > |think!rlk Cambridge, MA 02142
harvard >>>>>> . Thinking Machines Corp. (617)876-1111kim@kannel.lut.fi (Kimmo Suominen) (06/29/89)
In article <8906282347.AA00345@garnet.berkeley.edu> rusty@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU writes: Path: kannel!tut!draken!kth!mcvax!uunet!dino!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU!rusty From: rusty@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Newsgroups: comp.emacs Date: 28 Jun 89 23:47:05 GMT Lines: 6 Why are there these two newsgroups? I notice that about 75% of the articles that are posted to comp.emacs are about gnu emacs, and about 99% of those are also posted to gnu.emacs. I think that I shall propose to the usenet overlords that the gnu.emacs newsgroup be deleted. I don't think that is a good idea, since some people don't want to read articles about other than GNU Emacs. Another point is that when you want to find out something about GNU Emacs you would usually think of writing to gnu.emacs rather than comp.emacs. This way if you aren't interested in GNU you wouldn't get that message. Smart newsreaders notice from the Message-ID that you've already read a message in another newsgroup. This is a cross-posting, too ;-) Kim -- ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ( Kimmo Suominen Electronic Mail on Internet: kim@kannel.lut.fi ) ( "That's what I think!" on Funet: KUULA::KIM ) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''