kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel) (02/17/91)
In discussing problems with distribution of comp.sys.3b1, Eric Porter <grout!ejp> wrote to me: > Oh just to make matters a bit worse I just got a check groups message > that suggested I delete "comp.sys.3b1" I imagine that will not help > the situation. Who sends these out? We went through the official voting procedure; how can we get comp.sys.3b1 on the official list? Sounds like we've got to give somebody a "gentle reminder" that comp.sys.3b1 really DOES exist. Kris A. Kugel ( 908 ) 842-2707 uunet!tsdiag.ccur.com!hico2!kak {daver,ditka,zorch}!hico2!kak internet: kak@hico2.westmark.com
tale@rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (02/17/91)
In article <1079@hico2.UUCP> kak@hico2.UUCP (Kris A. Kugel) writes: In discussing problems with distribution of comp.sys.3b1, Eric Porter <grout!ejp> wrote to me: > Oh just to make matters a bit worse I just got a check groups message > that suggested I delete "comp.sys.3b1" I imagine that will not help > the situation. Who sends these out? Gene Spafford sends out a template which admins can apply to check the consistency of their own news databases. He does not post them such that they are automatically executed. I personally suggest that admins a) feed them to the checkgroups programme directly and b) not use the current C News checkgroups at all. Much of the heartburn people get from checkgroups flying around the net is because people don't control their distribution adequately and/or the recipients are running a C News checkgroups which wants to tell them that some huge portion of the groups that they carry are bogus. We went through the official voting procedure; how can we get comp.sys.3b1 on the official list? Don't sweat it, it is. The next template should have it. Sounds like we've got to give somebody a "gentle reminder" that comp.sys.3b1 really DOES exist. No you don't. comp.sys.3b1 was not created until after Spaf posted the most recent template. Some time between that time and whenever this rogue checkgroups hit town, admins added comp.sys.3b1. Hence complaints about it from their checkgroups. There will always be a window like this; personally I find it useful in a way to let me know for which groups I should add some local definitions until the _next_ set of lists is out. -- (setq mail '("tale@rpi.edu" "uupsi!rpi!tale" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))