tower@inmet.UUCP (03/31/84)
#R:vortex:-28100:inmet:7000052:000:1585
inmet!tower Mar 28 15:46:00 1984
In response to Lauren's item on a mac/lisa newsgroup:
I see no reason to have another net.micro.* for the mac/lisa.
There has not been enough USENET traffic.
I think it would be very nice to have a fa.info-mac . I wish that one of
the sites that are capable of doing the gate would. It was claimed a few
weeks ago (tail end of discussion below) that the INFO-MAC people on the
INTERNET, didn't want to gate because they were afraid there would be too
much volume from USENET to the INTERNET. This hasn't been the case. Much of
the USENET discussion wouldn't go over anyway, since many USENETers don't
understand that the protocol for posting to fa.* groups is different than
for net.* groups.
Having a concerned party (like Lauren) do the gate on an item-by-item basis
is ridiculous.
-len tower harpo!inmet!tower Cambridge, MA
***** inmet:net.micro.appl / dciem!mmt / 3:47 am Mar 18, 1984
Why does the fact that there is a lot of traffic in INFO-MAC argue AGAINST
the desirability of a gateway to USENET. Wouldn't USENET types (like me)
want to see all this (presumably interesting) discussion?
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
----------
***** inmet:net.micro.appl / seismo!rick / 6:55 am Mar 20, 1984
I believe that the traffic problem that they are worried
about with gatewaying INFO-MAC to Usenet is not the
volume TO Usenet, but the anticipated volume FROM Usenet
to the mailing list.
The volume of INFO-MAC is already huge. It seems to greatly
outnumber UNIX-WIZARDS, for example.
---rick
----------lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (04/01/84)
If you gatewayed over the stuff I get from the ARPA INFO-MAC list, you'd have plenty of traffic instantly.... --Lauren--