jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (03/24/89)
Individuals or sites who don't want to subscribe to or
carry "dead" groups don't have to, do they? In that case,
why not just (mangled metaphor alert) let sleeping groups lie
on the off-chance someone will post to one or more of them
eventually?
Para un Tejas Libre,
Jeff Daiell
P. S. Is it time to split news.groups into n.g.active and
n.g.inactive? {|8^)]
--
Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) (03/27/89)
In article <3548@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Individuals or sites who don't want to subscribe to or >carry "dead" groups don't have to, do they? In that case, >why not just (mangled metaphor alert) let sleeping groups lie >on the off-chance someone will post to one or more of them >eventually? As sys files grow, inews takes increasingly larger amounts of time to determine which articles go where, etc. The alternative is to locally rmgroup the questionable newsgroup. This can be a bother as now junk contains articles for these questionable groups, plus articles for groups which are leaking into your machine. Anyway, getting rid of newsgroups is not a bad idea. Some people have become romantically involved with seeing their name in the list of moderators or repeatedly justifying a newsgroup with no traffic and no real purpose. alt.rhode_island hasn't seen traffic since 2/12/89. I am not even going to suggest removing it ... -- John F. Haugh II +-Quote of the Week:------------------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Do not drink and bake" InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | -- Arnold Swartzenegger UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------