furuta (01/15/83)
Would the person who sent out the rmgroup message for net.periph please explain to me why it was necessary to delete this group? I've decided to set the MANUALLY flag. I also think that this is an extremely negative thing to do since it means that it will be just that much harder to keep the net clean (if I don't allow remote rmgroup messages, news readers on the systems I administrate can inadvertently post messages to groups created by typos, etc.). However, I think that the rmgroup wars have become just a bit to anarchist for me to handle. It's my feeling that an increasing number of sites are disabling remote rmgroups. I also have the feeling that an increasing number of sites are routing the rmgroup control messages to /dev/null because of their number. What I'm trying to say is that it seems to me that rmgroup is becoming unworkable for the size of the net. I'd suggest that we think about possible alternatives (yes, I realize that suggesting a change to netnews software is almost impossible to actually carry out). In the mean time, I'd suggest that those of you who feel compelled to rmgroup net groups post explanations so that the rest of us aren't just left fuming. Perhaps a new group, net.news.rmgroup, would be in order. --Rick
sjb (01/16/83)
Not coming from here, I can only speculate why net.periph was rm'ed (if I recall, it was done by mj1!usenet -- care to speak for yourself?) net.periph is not a group, it's that simple. net.periphs (note the s on the end) is the peripheral device newsgroup. A note to all you rmgroup weary admin's: I have been persuaded (politely, not by any flaming) to stop rmgroup'ing illegitimate newsgroups until 2.10 comes out, when the problem of them will be solved automatically (they will just not be created without the proper control messages in the first place)