lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (06/01/85)
Without any discussion, I now see that somebody is posting the entire transactions of the packet radio mailing list onto net.ham-radio (the first such "digest" was over 30K bytes). This is getting silly. The reason a mailing list was set up instead of a newsgroup was to avoid having the lengthy and fairly esoteric discussions about AX.25, TCP/IP, and similar topics being forced down the throats of net.ham-radio readers who might not wish to receieve such materials at this time. Anybody on the nets can subscribe directly to the list if they are interested in the topic. Posting all of the transactions to net.ham-radio simply doubles the traffic to the members of the list, most of whom are already receiving net.ham-radio. This is costing people REAL MONEY. If there is a massive outcry for all the nitty- gritty packet radio technical discussions and arguing to be widely posted, then a separate newsgroup should be used. In that case the mailing list could be dissolved. But having the mailing list and then reposting to net.ham-radio is just wasting disk space and money. Personally, I think that this is a classic case where mailing lists are superior to newsgroups. But it should be EITHER the mailing list OR a SEPARATE newsgroup apart from the top-level net.ham-radio. I would prefer to see the former. But it is extremely wasteful to do both. --Lauren-- P.S. Due to other gatewaying that I know is going on, there are now some groups of people who will receive THREE copies of all packet radio messages thanks to the most recent "digest" postings. --LW--
ars@burl.UUCP (ars) (06/05/85)
> Without any discussion, I now see that somebody is posting the entire > transactions of the packet radio mailing list onto net.ham-radio > (the first such "digest" was over 30K bytes). This is getting silly. > The reason a mailing list was set up instead of a newsgroup was to > avoid having the lengthy and fairly esoteric discussions about AX.25, > TCP/IP, and similar topics being forced down the throats of net.ham-radio > readers who might not wish to receieve such materials at this time. > > Anybody on the nets can subscribe directly to the list if they > are interested in the topic. Posting all of the transactions to > net.ham-radio simply doubles the traffic to the members of the list, > most of whom are already receiving net.ham-radio. This is costing > people REAL MONEY. If there is a massive outcry for all the nitty- > gritty packet radio technical discussions and arguing to be widely > posted, then a separate newsgroup should be used. In that case the > mailing list could be dissolved. But having the mailing list and > then reposting to net.ham-radio is just wasting disk space and money. > > Personally, I think that this is a classic case where mailing lists > are superior to newsgroups. But it should be EITHER the mailing > list OR a SEPARATE newsgroup apart from the top-level net.ham-radio. > I would prefer to see the former. But it is extremely wasteful > to do both. > > --Lauren-- > > P.S. Due to other gatewaying that I know is going on, there are > now some groups of people who will receive THREE copies of all > packet radio messages thanks to the most recent "digest" postings. > > --LW-- For what it counts I appreciate the chance to view the digest material. If I knew of another way to obtain the material in the digest, I might agree with Lauren; however, as far as I know I can not be on the Packet Radio Mailing List since our site is not on ARPA. If I am wrong please correct me. Allen Shuff AI4G AT&T Technologies, Burlington, N.C.
jak@mtunh.UUCP (Jim Kutsch) (06/05/85)
I agree that posting the packet "digest" is the wrong thing to do. Clifford@mit-eddie and I have been discussing the creation of a new newsgroup for packet discussions. We have both solicited opinions and as a result of the query, I created net.ham-radio.packet last weekend. Clif is willing to gateway articles between the Arpa mailing list and Usenet. Unfortunately, due to a netnews snafu here, the new newsgroup probably hasn't gone very far yet. 73, Jim KY2D.
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (06/05/85)
Like I said, anybody can be on the mailing list. In fact, I don't know why anyone should think they have to be on ARPA to receive it--the list is almost totally distributed via uucp (I receive it from ihnp4). So there's no excuse in saying, "I can't receive the mailing list." But in any case, even if the digest is deemed a good idea, it should BE IN A SEPARATE NEWSGROUP so that people already on the list and on net.ham-radio aren't forced to deal with duplications. And so that the people locked into other gateways don't have to receive THREE copies of everything. --Lauren--
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (06/06/85)
> the mailing list." But in any case, even if the digest is deemed > a good idea, it should BE IN A SEPARATE NEWSGROUP so that people > already on the list and on net.ham-radio aren't forced to deal > with duplications. And so that the people locked into other > gateways don't have to receive THREE copies of everything. > > --Lauren-- Yes, net.ham-radio is dumped into INFO-HAMS. Thus you've now deluging people who get INFO-HAMS by arpanet and the PACKET-RADIO list with two copies of everything. -Ron