rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (02/14/86)
In article <736@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >lost in net.sources. People who don't get mod.sources as a newsgroup can >still send mail to the moderator asking for copies. (Perhaps manpages only >could be posted along with a message saying where to get the code itself from >the mod.sources moderator.) > This is the second time I have heard this. Please tell me via mail why anyone would get net.sources and *not* get mod.sources. A slack administrator with no "mod" in the sys file? An ARPANET problem, maybe? Notesfiles? I'd like to know. I am personally in favor of trashing net.sources completely. The moderator of mod.sources wrote me a very informative letter bemoaning the common misconception that mod.sources is for *good* code and net.sources is for "casual" code. His whole intent in moderating mod.sources was to stop the flood of "I didn't get part X of ..." and similar trash that we all hate. Mod.sources should be sufficient for all source postings. If this can't be worked out, though, my mail on net.sources.d is running <whatever> to 2 in favor of creation. Several people have suggested that the name be net.sources.announce instead, though -- I think it is a very good suggestion because it'll cause more people to use the group. Like I said, please send me mail and explain why you don't get mod.sources but do get net.sources, and thanks in advance, -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj