gz@spt.entity.com (Gail Zacharias) (05/08/88)
I recently tried posting something to comp.sources.mac only to have it automagically mailed off to some moderator, never to be heard of again. I don't know whether it never made there (although I never got any mailer barfage), or whether a moderator is still pondering its news-worthiness. Is there any real reason for comp.sources.mac to be moderated? At the risk of understatement, I can confidently say that volume would not be a problem. It's a little hard to try and develop the 'sources habit' in the macintosh community when source postings get unnecessarily delayed or go off into a black hole. I'd rather live with an occasional inappropriate posting. I've had quite a few mail requests for the sources since I announced them, so the interest in sources is there, but most of the mail oozed with doubts about the reality of comp.sources.mac. I'd like to propose that comp.sources.mac become unmoderated. What is the procedure for making that happen? I'd be willing to take a vote, although I'd rather not. At least I'd like to hear some confirmation from the backbone, or whoever handles such things, that a vote is what's required, before making hundreds of mailers jump through the hoops about this... Alternately, maybe we can all simply agree that sources are appropriate comp.sys.mac.programmer fodder and avoid comp.sources.mac altogether? Followups have been directed to news.groups. -- gz@entity.com ...!mit-eddie!spt!gz Stop the virus epidemic - demand the sources.
Ilan@cup.portal.com (05/10/88)
I second Gail's motion to UNMODERATE comp.sources.mac. The group as it
currently stands is a poor excuse for a group. If the moderation is
the problem we should find out about it as soon a possible. If on the
otherhand its a low rate of posting then possibly the group should be
eliminated altogether. As it stands now the group sits there pretty
much unused.
- Ilan Rabinowitz - with ILANET(tm)
Ilan@cup.portal.combytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long) (05/10/88)
In article <299@spt.entity.com> Gail Zacharias (gz@spt.entity.com) writes: >I recently tried posting something to comp.sources.mac only to have it >automagically mailed off to some moderator, never to be heard of again. I >don't know whether it never made there (although I never got any mailer >barfage), or whether a moderator is still pondering its news-worthiness. Since my mail evidently didn't reach you, I'll respond this way. I mailed to you a note saying that your posting was being held until you could supply a machine readable version, since your experiment in posting non-ascii characters in the makefile didn't work. I indicated that if you didn't want to post the makefile, that I could simply remove it from the shar archive and post the rest of the source. I've been waiting for your reply. -- -- Roger L. Long dhw68k!bytebug
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) (05/12/88)
In article <5250@cup.portal.com> Ilan@cup.portal.com writes: >I second Gail's motion to UNMODERATE comp.sources.mac. The group as it >currently stands is a poor excuse for a group. If the moderation is >the problem we should find out about it as soon a possible. If on the >otherhand its a low rate of posting then possibly the group should be >eliminated altogether. As it stands now the group sits there pretty >much unused. I think there are two reasons for this. First, when people include source they often packit together with the binary, so the entire thing gets posted as a binary. Occasionally, someone like me, sends the moderator two files, one of the binary versions and one of the source version. The Second reason, is that the net.gods probably expect xxx.sources groups to be in ascii text, not Binhex. Binhexed sources probably end up on binaries while shared sources end up on sources. Pierce Wetter I third the motion to unmoderate. ---------------------------------------------------------------- wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu Race For Space Grand Prize Winner. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Useless Advice #986: Never sit on a Tack.
sls@dukempd.UUCP (Shelley Shostak) (05/13/88)
In article <6502@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Pierce T. Wetter) writes: >In article <5250@cup.portal.com> Ilan@cup.portal.com writes: >>I second Gail's motion to UNMODERATE comp.sources.mac. The group as it >>currently stands is a poor excuse for a group. If the moderation is > > I third the motion to unmoderate. > I disagree with the idea of unmoderating comp.sources.mac. If unmoderated, the quality of sources will go down. I assume that the moderator compiles and runs the sources he receives, just as the moderator of comp.binaries.mac tries to run the binaries he receives. I don't think I'd waste my time downloading any source unless it was posted by someone whose reputation has been established in somp.sys.mac. I would like to see GOOD WORKING examples of sources, not just ANY examples. Shelley Shostak 1-919-684-8279 Duke University Dept. of Physics sls@dukempd.uucp Durham, N.C. 27706 mcnc!duke!dukempd!sls from BITNET : sls%dukempd@cs.duke.edu -- Shelley Shostak 1-919-684-8279 Duke University Dept. of Physics sls@dukempd.uucp Durham, N.C. 27706 mcnc!duke!dukempd!sls from BITNET : sls%dukempd@cs.duke.edu