avi (04/29/83)
I have been complaining to Mark Horton about the name "net.general" for quite a while. I am finally going to make my views public. The name chosen has to be very formidable. For one thing, it should be long -- to discourage regular use. The 2.10 software should handle (and perhaps insist on) full names of any reasonable size. The name net.announce has all the drawbacks that net.general had. A name like net.nontrivial is mildly better. Let us agree on some suitable name such as net.urgent or net.wrong-group. The name of the group does not need to reflect its content. It does need to keep novices from accidentally sending garbage to. Let us just choose any old name. The software can then be updated so that you can not unsuscribe to this group - either as an individual or as a machine. In addition, the header of EACH message in that group can contain a statement that states that this message should be of net-wide importance. (This header can be inserted locally for any set of badly used newsgroups). I am not really serious about my next suggestion. I often wish that I could have the option to immediately generate a form letter that would politely mention that someone on the net thought an article was: - not appropriate - inaccurate - wrong newsgroup - much appreciated - etc. This would tend to generate too much mail, but may quickly teach the offender a lesson (by drowning his mailbox). I rarely bother to send any such letters (anymore) because it would be a full time job. I would, finally, like to support Mark in testing the moderated newsgroup. He has wanted to perform a similar experiment since UNICOM, but no one has volunteered to do it. It can be a very time-consuming task. I believe that most of us respect Mark's opinion when it comes to the usenet (among other places.) I hope the situation clears up a bit. I am very disturbed at hearing that we could not send out an "emergency broadcast" that would reach everybody. Avi E. Gross (...!houxm!hogpd!avi)