ken@rochester.UUCP (and Vicki Herrieschopper) (11/01/85)
In article <695@h-sc1.UUCP> dormitzer@h-sc1.UUCP (paul dormitzer) writes: >A logical solution to the traffic problem in this group would be to post >SOURCES here, post BUGS and BUG FIXES to net.sources.bugs, and MAIL your >comments to the authors of programs rather than posting followup articles >to this group. If net-wide discussion of programs posted here is deemed >necessary, said discussion should be placed in other newsgroups. Perhaps >there should be a net.sources.d or some other such group. Yes, create a net.sources.d and make followups from net.sources go there by default. And while we are talking about rmgrouping net.sources, may I point out that as long some site downstream uses the sources, the transmission is not wasted. Do the people who want to rmgroup net.sources have statistics to show how many transmissions are "wasted"? Also, many sites archive net.sources. If readers had to mail off for sources, I doubt if many administrators will take the time to request for the sources. Except for the usual "please send me a copy of hack V25.3" and "I think your programming style stinks" messages, this group has been pretty clean of frivolious (sp?) postings. This is a vote to keep it. This is not to say that mod.sources is not a good idea too but not every program belongs there. Ken -- UUCP: ..!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!ken ARPA: ken@rochester.arpa USnail: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Rochester, NY 14627. Voice: Ken!