scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (01/31/88)
As of a few days ago, I am running a public mailing list for the purpose of
sending articles from the unix-pc News network to people who cannot get the
unix-pc groups. Send mail to me if you wish to be included on this list.
As with any mailing list, if the readership gets high enough, Something
Will Have To Be Done. In the case of this list, the specific proposal is
to gateway the unix-pc groups into comp.sys.att. If you're interested in
seeing this done, join the list; help me get the readership count high
enough.
\scott
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET
(408) 245-9461 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scottkathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (01/31/88)
In article <403@zorch.UU.NET> scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: >As of a few days ago, I am running a public mailing list for the purpose of >sending articles from the unix-pc News network to people who cannot get the >unix-pc groups. Send mail to me if you wish to be included on this list. > >As with any mailing list, if the readership gets high enough, Something >Will Have To Be Done. In the case of this list, the specific proposal is >to gateway the unix-pc groups into comp.sys.att. If you're interested in >seeing this done, join the list; help me get the readership count high >enough. Actually - sorry and no offense intended - this strikes me as funny ... because part of the original networking of the unix-pc groups included sending news as mail to people who couldn't otherwise get directly connected ... In other words, that's always been a possibility. It's easy enough to do - an entry in a sys file. I would also be happy to send the groups as mail - but only in the interest of getting the information out to people who need it, NOT in the interest of adding numbers to a mailing list. Sending the groups as mail, as I see it, takes care of the Something Having to Be Done because, if the purpose is to get the information to people, it will have been gotten to people. What further purpose does "gatewaying" (that nasty nonverb again) the groups into comp.sys.att serve? And I have yet to understand what gatewaying (...) does that cross-posting doesn't. Someone, please explain that to me. In public - maybe I'm not the only one who doesn't understand it. Kathy Vincent ------> {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy ------> {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy ------> { favourite AT&T gateway }!wruxe!unix
richard@islenet.UUCP (Richard Foulk) (02/01/88)
> And I have yet to understand what gatewaying (...) does that cross-posting > doesn't. Someone, please explain that to me. In public - maybe I'm not > the only one who doesn't understand it. Gatewaying would be automatic. Not something that everyone would have to remember to do every time they post. Cross-posting would be a special requirement of these groups shared by no others. The special cross-posting requirement would have to be continually re-announced so that newcomers wouldn't miss out. Why require special handling from everyone involved rather than making things automatic? No one is suggesting that the unix-pc groups be abolished, just that they be better connected. In a clean, convenient, proven way. -- Richard Foulk ...{vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!richard Honolulu, Hawaii
scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) (02/01/88)
In article <1061@bakerst.UUCP> kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) writes: >sending news as mail to people who couldn't otherwise get directly >connected ... In other words, that's always been a possibility. Of course it has been possible. I'm doing it, aren't I? *You* never mentioned, even though you were obviously aware of it. >What further purpose does "gatewaying" (that nasty nonverb again) >the groups into comp.sys.att serve? *If* the readership is high enough, it is less costly to the transport links (read "the Usenet backbone") to send news than to send a mailing list. >And I have yet to understand what gatewaying (...) does that cross-posting >doesn't. Someone, please explain that to me. In public - maybe I'm not >the only one who doesn't understand it. 1) A gateway does not require all sites that generate material receive boths groups. Unless there's something in the News software that I'm not familiar with, it's not possible to cross-post into a group that your site does not receive. That applies to unix-pc-only sites as well as Usenet-only sites. 2) A gateway is *automatic*. It puts no requirements on posters to make intelligent choices. And it has been shown time and again through the experience of the Usenet that posters by and large *don't* make intelligent choices; hence, the large numbers of article followups that appear in inappropriate groups because the topic changed but the Newsgroups line didn't. >Kathy Vincent ------> {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy > ------> {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy > ------> { favourite AT&T gateway }!wruxe!unix -- Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.UU.NET (408) 245-9461 (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott