mp@allegra.UUCP (Mark Plotnick) (02/25/85)
The Arpanet info-law list is being restarted. Is there interest in creating an fa.info-law group? ~Date: 20 Feb 1985 2250-PST ~From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff@SRI-CSL.ARPA> ~Subject: Info-Law Returns. ~To: ;@Info-Law.ARPA ~ ~If you get this message, you're on the INFO-LAW@SRI-CSL mailing list. ~Info-Law will resume service promptly on March 1st. Feel free to start ~sending material to Info-Law@SRI-CSL for transmission. If you wish ~to be dropped from the list or you received two copies of this message ~(meaning you might be on twice somehow), please let Info-Law-Request@SRI-CSL ~know. ~ ~Here's INFO-LAW's entry for the Interest-Groups.Txt file: ~INFO-LAW@SRI-CSL ~ ~ Interest in computers and law. Mail gets distributed after being ~ first manually screened. Process may involve returning to author for ~ clarification and/or other sanitization.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/27/85)
> The Arpanet info-law list is being restarted. Is there interest > in creating an fa.info-law group? Yes! Who do we convince to get it? -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (02/27/85)
From net.news.group: > The Arpanet info-law list is being restarted. Is there interest > in creating an fa.info-law group? Another possibility would be to gateway INFO-LAW and net.legal, the same way that net.sf-lovers or net.lang.c works. This would be preferable to creating a new readonly group, provided the interests of the INFO-LAW and the net.legal readers are pretty comparable. It works pretty well with the groups I mentioned, except that the "duplicate responses" problem is bad in sf-lovers, probably to do with long transit times. I'm not in a position to set up such a gateway, nor to know what INFO-LAW readers were interested in when it was alive. Could someone who has more information comment on this? Mark Brader
mp@allegra.UUCP (Mark Plotnick) (03/02/85)
While an automatic gateway would be easier on the usenet folk, the problem is that net.legal's charter is much broader than that of info-law@sri-csl. Since Geoff will be screening each message sent to the arpanet list, I don't think it's too courteous to automatically send him all the articles from net.legal, since only 5% or 10% of them have to do with computers and the law. Having an fa group does not preclude usenet readers from posting articles to the list, it just makes it a little harder than typing the 'f' command; look at fa.laser-lovers. Mark allegra!mp
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (03/04/85)
mp@allegra.UUCP (Mark Plotnick) writes: > While an automatic gateway would be easier on the usenet folk, the > problem is that net.legal's charter is much broader than that of > info-law@sri-csl... This makes sense, but the Arpaname is then misleading and the group may tend to attract inappropriate postings from this side. Is it necessary that the fa-name coincide with the Arpaname, or could we make it something like fa.cs-law? Mark Brader