fortin@zap.UUCP (Denis Fortin) (01/31/88)
Greetings... A few weeks ago (maybe 2 months), the `comp.unix.microport' group was created for users of Microport products (System V/AT, System V/386, DosMerge, etc). Since that time, traffic in the group has been abnormally low (16 messages overall) given the amount of uPort traffic that normally appeared in comp.unix.xenix. I believe that the reason for this dramatic drop in popularity is the fact that the group is moderated. Now, I am not raising the issue of moderated groups vs unmoderated groups again (I actually tend to prefer reading moderated groups). Unfortunately, in this case I think that the problems with that group are caused by issues *relating* to moderation. In the past couple of months, I have posted about 5 messages to comp.unix.microport. Only one of these has reached me thus far, and four others have been returned by uwvax, complaining that it couldn't talk to uwmacc in 7 days (or was it 10?). I checked the path that pathalias recommended to get to uwspan (where the moderator lives). It is: ...!uunet!mimsy!rutgers!uwvax!uwmacc!uwspan!<user> Unfortunately, this path doesn't seem to work. Furthermore, uwspan has marked the uwmacc link as (DEAD) -- it is possible that uwmacc still talks to uwspan even if uwspan doesn't talk to it anymore, but it seems a bit doubtful. I tried re-routing my message through the following path: ...!uunet!mimsy!rutgers!uwvax!geowhiz!uwspan!<user> by going through the maps manually, but I haven't heard anything since. Now, I understand that every once in a while people stand up and complain "I haven't been able to reach the moderator", but since the traffic in comp.unix.microport is so low, I assume that it isn't just me who is having problems... As a quick fix, I suggest un-moderating the group for now so that uPort users can once again exchange information, and then if we find that the volume (or S/N ratio) in comp.unix.microport warrants it, we'll re-arrange for moderation. -- Denis Fortin | fortin@zap.UUCP CAE Electronics Ltd | philabs!micomvax!zap!fortin The opinions expressed above are my own | fortin%zap.uucp@uunet.uu.net
myxm@beta.UUCP (Mike Mitchell) (02/01/88)
Another vote for no moderation. I too have had postings bounce back to me. Mike Mitchell
mike@cimcor.UUCP (Michael Grenier) (02/01/88)
From mike Mon Feb 1 08:25:01 1988 remote from cimcor Received: by cimcor.UUCP (smail2.5) id AA07085; 1 Feb 88 08:25:01 CST (Mon) To: rosevax!ems!dayton!rutgers!mit-eddie!necntc!linus!philabs!micomvax!zap!fortin Subject: Re: --- Moderation problems with comp.unix.microport --- In-reply-to: your article <389@zap.UUCP> Date: 1 Feb 88 08:25:01 CST (Mon) From: mike@cimcor.UUCP (Michael Grenier) Message-Id: <8802010825.AA07085@cimcor.UUCP> > Greetings... > > A few weeks ago (maybe 2 months), the `comp.unix.microport' group > was created for users of Microport products (System V/AT, System V/386, > DosMerge, etc). Since that time, traffic in the group has been abnormally > low (16 messages overall) given the amount of uPort traffic that normally > appeared in comp.unix.xenix. > I've been trying to get anything from comp.unix.microport for about a month now. It seems that except for a few sites with different news routing, none of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area sites have gotten anything from comp.unix.microport. I haven't determined yet whether the problem is in one of our main feeds or whether its near the moderator end. We were getting it for a few weeks initially so something has changed in the mail paths since then. > As a quick fix, I suggest un-moderating the group for now > so that uPort users can once again exchange information, and then if > we find that the volume (or S/N ratio) in comp.unix.microport warrants > it, we'll re-arrange for moderation. I completly area with Denis on this one. I'm not sure why this group is moderated in the first place unless someone was afraid of more Microport Advertising :-). --- Michael Grenier {rutgers, amdahl, ihnp4}!bungia!cimcor!mike 612-464-7382
dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) (02/02/88)
In article <15112@beta.UUCP>, myxm@beta.UUCP (Mike Mitchell) writes: > Another vote for no moderation. I too have had postings bounce back to me. > Mike Mitchell Echoing the voices of others: I have sent two long postings to the 386 Microport address and recieved no acknowledgement and never saw a posting containing the material (which *had* to have been at least somewhat interesting--at least enough to acknowledge its existence.) Thus, either a mailer spurned me (with no feedback) or the "moderator" is being immoderate with his editing. If the moderator(s) cannot keep timely postings of collected material then they should resign and free-up the discussion. Another point of note is the fact that ISC (and potentially others) can not respond in an unmoderated forum for fear of "commercializing" the net. Thus, moderating this news group may be the only way to get our vendors involved in this potentially crucial feedback loop. -- David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. ...!{ames|harvard|rutgers|topaz|...}!rochester!ur-valhalla!micropen!dave "The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll
john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) (02/02/88)
In article <409@micropen>, dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) writes: > In article <15112@beta.UUCP>, myxm@beta.UUCP (Mike Mitchell) writes: > > Another vote for no moderation. I too have had postings bounce back to me. > > Mike Mitchell There is a posting in comp.unix.questions that states there is a link down between us and the moderator. So its really not the moderators fault. I think he's been doing a good job but despite that, I think we desperately need an un-moderated group. I understand John (the moderator) has issued a request to the back-bone to make the group un-moderated. So our wishes are not going un-noticed. Keep your fingers crossed! :-) John -- John Gayman, WA3WBU | UUCP: uunet!wa3wbu!john 1869 Valley Rd. | ARPA: wa3wbu!john@uunet.UU.NET Marysville, PA 17053 | Packet: WA3WBU @ AK3P
james@bigtex.uu.net (James Van Artsdalen) (02/02/88)
I concur: either the newsgroup should be unmoderated, or the backbones should update their tables to find a route to the moderator that works. I think Plocher has been disconnected somehow from his mail path. He hasn't responded to mail in a couple weeks: various MAILER-DAEMONs along the way sure have though. I personally understand the desire on the part of the NetGods for moderation wherever politically acceptable, but this case points up the weakness in this scheme (or maybe not: it *has* kept the volume down! :-). -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Work: 512-328-0282 Home: 346-2444; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (02/02/88)
In article <389@zap.UUCP> fortin@zap.UUCP (Denis Fortin) writes: > Now, I understand that every once in a while people stand up >and complain "I haven't been able to reach the moderator", but since the >traffic in comp.unix.microport is so low, I assume that it isn't just >me who is having problems... > > As a quick fix, I suggest un-moderating the group for now >so that uPort users can once again exchange information, and then if >we find that the volume (or S/N ratio) in comp.unix.microport warrants >it, we'll re-arrange for moderation. I agree. This type of group seems to work well *without* moderation. On a second related topic let me reiterate my belief that we would be better served by having comp.unix.286 and comp.unix.386 groups as opposed to .xenix and .microport. As a 386 user I have little or *no* interest in reading anything at all to do with either Microport *or* Xenix on the 286. It has absolutely nothing to do with me. On the other hand even though I run microport 386 system v, I would like to keep abreast of the discussion on Xenix 386. If it works better there I'll switch. And in point of fact by the end of the year they should be basically one and the same. So might I suggest that a re-thinking of the .microport group might be in order. I vote for comp.unix.386 (un-moderated of course). -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul) (02/03/88)
In article <409@micropen> dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) writes: >Echoing the voices of others: I have sent two long postings to the 386 >Microport address and recieved no acknowledgement and never saw a posting >containing the material (which *had* to have been at least somewhat >interesting--at least enough to acknowledge its existence.) Thus, either >a mailer spurned me (with no feedback) or the "moderator" is being >immoderate with his editing. If the moderator(s) cannot keep timely postings >of collected material then they should resign and free-up the discussion. > >Another point of note is the fact that ISC (and potentially others) can not >respond in an unmoderated forum for fear of "commercializing" the net. >Thus, moderating this news group may be the only way to get our vendors >involved in this potentially crucial feedback loop. I cannot speak for the 386 moderator, but John Plocher, the 286 moderator and prime mover in the establishment of comp.unix.microport, is working to get the group unmoderated. He is also working to get the "black hole" sorted out which has swallowed up the last month's traffic. To reach him, use either uwvax!geowhiz!uwspan!microport or plocher@puff.cs.wisc.edu As for commercializing the net in an unmoderated group, ISC, SCO, UPORT, and others can respond to questions regarding their products, as long as they leave the advertising to satisfied users. There is nothing in the USENET etiquette that prohibits a vendor from answering "how-to" questions regarding his product -- and that's really all that is necessary, isn't it? Wolf Paul ihnp4!killer!wnp
woods@hao.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (02/03/88)
In article <475@wa3wbu.UUCP> john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) writes: > There is a posting in comp.unix.questions that states there is a link >down between us and the moderator. So its really not the moderators fault. True. It seems that the network configuration at U. Wisconsin, where the moderator lives, has changed, but their map entries haven't. Thus mail (moderated group postings) is going down the black hole. This problem is being worked on. >I think he's been doing a good job but despite that, I think we >desperately need an un-moderated group. I understand John (the moderator) >has issued a request to the back-bone to make the group un-moderated. If he has, I haven't heard it, and I'm on the backbone mailing list. But then, if mail isn't going in to him, it might not be coming out from him either. >So our wishes are not going un-noticed. Keep your fingers crossed! :-) The problem certainly has been noticed, and it is being worked on. I'm in contact with the postmaster at uwvax and I'm trying to find a path to the moderator that will work. When I have one, we'll change the backbone moderated group aliases appropriately and get comp.unix.microport back on the air again. --Greg
paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) (02/05/88)
In article <1663@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >On a second related topic let me reiterate my belief that we would be better >served by having comp.unix.286 and comp.unix.386 groups as opposed to .xenix >and .microport. As a 386 user I have little or *no* interest in reading >anything at all to do with either Microport *or* Xenix on the 286. It has >absolutely nothing to do with me. I tried to raise that point when comp.unix.microport was being considered. Their solution was to have three different moderators, each handling a different segment of the traffic; the subject lines of articles they posted were all specifically marked as "386" or "286", etc. The idea was that we as news readers would put things in our "KILL" files (if we had rn) to make sure we didn't see things we didn't care about. In the 286 UNIX community, there are two principle products: Xenix and uPort. In the 386 UNIX community, there is Sequent/Sun/other-BSD-products and then there's Xenix/386, and then there's the AT&T-sponsored port, which is being sold by Interactive, Bell Technologies, and Microport (as their 386 product). >On the other hand even though I run microport 386 system v, I would like to >keep abreast of the discussion on Xenix 386. If it works better there I'll >switch. And in point of fact by the end of the year they should be >basically one and the same. Perhaps. AT&T has not given a definitive statement of the AT&T/Sun agreement's impact on the SysV/386 line. I, for one, would rather use the merged SunOS product than the merged Xenix product, and the 386 is easily powerful enough to do this. I doubt that we'll see a merged Xenix/SunOS/SysV product, though. So I think there will continue to be two groups -- the Xenix-SysV and the BSD-SysV mergers. I expect both to be available on the 386. >So might I suggest that a re-thinking of the .microport group might be in >order. I vote for comp.unix.386 (un-moderated of course). Well, first: you can't have a group with a digit-string as a component of the name (it looks too much like an article in the spool directory). Second, I don't think that the Sequent/386 or SunOS/386 users are going to have much in common with the Xenix or Interactive/BellTech/WG6386/Micrport-386 people. Given those two facts, I proposed comp.unix.sysv.i386 rather than the comp.unix.386 name you suggest. SunOS/386 discussions will probably go on in comp.sys.sun; Sequent/386 discussions will stay in comp.sys.sequent. I'm for moderation, since it seems to work very well for the info-386ix mailing list. I have rejected nothing; however, repetitious questions are usually posted with answers already appended, which keeps the irritation level down. If you have arguments against moderation for comp.unix.sysv.i386 (which, by the way, news.groups is presently voting on - send your vote today!) please let me know. (Hint: my mail connectivity is EXCELLENT, always has been, always will be. I do e-mail and system support for a living, and I keep my own system Exactly Up To Snuff.) -- Paul A Vixie Esq paul%vixie@uunet.uu.net {uunet,ptsfa,hoptoad}!vixie!paul San Francisco, (415) 647-7023
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (02/07/88)
I also have had problems posting to comp.unix.microport and so I also vote for no moderation, at least until the problem is solved. David Beckemeyer