rusty@cadnetix.COM (Rusty) (03/15/89)
In article <2091@helios.ee.lbl.gov> Jef Poskanzer <jef@helios.ee.lbl.gov> writes: > >It turns out, though, there there are quite a few groups with no >traffic. I have appended a list of 16 moderated groups and 32 free >groups that are dead dead dead. Ok, but see below. >Suggestion: after a few months with no traffic, a moderated group >should be changed to free,... > >As for a free group with no traffic for a few months, just remove the >sucker. If anyone objects, they can vote to have the group re-created. I agree, I think. (Hows that for hedging? :-) However, a group which has 'no traffic' at one site may be very heavily active at another. For example, I am very far behind in reading >comp.ibm.binaries.d y <--- this was in Jef's list of dead groups. with something like 100 unread articles in it when I got in today. Perhaps your site has an upstream feed which is not passing that group? In any case, it seems that some sort of semi-automatic system for removing inactive groups may have merit, or at least some way of notifying someone that a discussion to remove the group should be started. However, I suggest a minimum of 3 months of no activity at some set of 'major' sites be required, and then perhaps a discussion here on news.groups (note, followups directed only to news.groups)? (Oh, boy, just what we need, more discussions on news.groups! :-(. Note - I am not a sysadmin nor in any other way involved in administering news at our site, so I have no vested interest in removing groups or limiting the number of groups. ----- Rusty Carruth UUCP:{uunet,boulder}!cadnetix!rusty DOMAIN: rusty@cadnetix.com Cadnetix Corp. (303) 444-8075x241 \ 5775 Flatiron Pkwy. \ Boulder, Co 80301 Radio: N7IKQ 'home': P.O.B. 461 \ Lafayette, CO 80026