RSHAPIRO@BBNA.ARPA (10/02/84)
From: Richard Shapiro <RSHAPIRO@BBNA.ARPA> Return-Path: <WMARTIN@SIMTEL20> Received: from SIMTEL20 by BBNA; Tue 2 Oct 84 11:33:50-EDT Date: Tue 2 Oct 84 09:31:55-MDT From: William G. Martin <WMartin@SIMTEL20.ARPA> Subject: Re: swl questions To: Flowers@YALE.ARPA cc: RSHAPIRO@BBNA.ARPA, WMartin@SIMTEL20.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Margot <Flowers@YALE.ARPA>" of Mon 1 Oct 84 14:00:38-MDT I think it is important that the SWL traffic remains on the hams discussion list, as is, for several reasons: 1. It exists now. There is a lot of overhead in setting up a list, especially if you do it right, with an archive location, a recognized moderator, a "list-request" address, and a host that supports lists and lets the archives use disk space. We have this now, and it is a waste to duplicate it, even if we could. It may not be possible to support a viable SWL-only list. 2. It is now gatewayed between ARPA/MILNET's Info-Hams and USENET's net.ham-radio. This is not an easy thing to achieve, and is quite valuable, as it expands the community enormously. 3. Though there are many ham areas of no interest to SWL's, and vice-versa, there is truly a lot of overlap. It is BAD to artifically subdivide the groups and then have to duplicate or transship messages of mutual interest (general-coverage receiver reviews, propagation info, etc.) between them. Hams should be interested in encouraging SWLs to consider becoming hams, and exposure to the discussion/info is good for that. Hams can easily be SWL's if they know there is something worth listening to. The interaction is mutually beneficial. 4. It is working now; don't fix it. Will PS -- Feel free to forward this to the list, if you want. ------- -------