Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!rpi.edu!tale From: tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) Newsgroups: comp.emacs Subject: Re: comp.emacs vs. gnu.emacs Message-ID: Date: 29 Jun 89 01:06:27 GMT References: <8906282347.AA00345@garnet.berkeley.edu> Sender: usenet@rpi.edu Reply-To: tale@pawl.rpi.edu Lines: 25 In-reply-to: rusty@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU's message of 28 Jun 89 23:47:05 GMT gnu.emacs is gatewayed bi-directionally to info-gnu-emacs@ai.mit.edu. comp.emacs is gatewayed from info-gnu-emacs but not back into the mailing list. The reason that there is such a high crossposting percentage between the two groups is because people that send to the list have their messages crossposted for them. Other users like myself will post elisp to both groups because there are some people who can only be reached through the USENET lines in comp.emacs and others who read only the mailing list. As it says in every article posted to a gnu.* group from the mail side, GNUS Not USENET. Proposing anything to "the usenet overlords" about the gnu.* groups will mean little because the gnu hierarchy, like bionet, alt, biz, and the inet, is not within the normal jurisdiction of USENET. They merely utilize the same transport mechanism. If you do end up deciding to propose the deletion of gnu.emacs, do not be surprised to find your effort unsuccessful. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet")) "I realize the Internet isn't the whole world, but it is the center of it." -- Greg Woods