Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!zog.cs.cmu.edu!tgl
From: tgl@zog.cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: gnu.* (was Re: Changes to Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies)
Summary: why not moderated groups, then?
Message-ID: <5617@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 24 Jul 89 01:29:53 GMT
References: <237@unmvax.unm.edu> <KARL.89Jul23183041@dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 24

In article <KARL.89Jul23183041@dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
karl@dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes:
> The gnu.* newsgroups are considered to be, even now, echoes of the
> still-existing mailing lists.  Every gnu.* group, with the exceptions
> of gnu.config and gnu.test, has a mailing list equivalent.
> 
> There is also still some argument going on about continuing the
> gateway, because of the _large_ number of misguided, flammable, and
> generally distracting postings which manage to creep into all corners
> of gnu.*.

If that's the case, why aren't the gnu.* groups moderated groups?
Moderate 'em, set up an automatic mechanism so that mailing list
messages get sent out as approved articles, and forward Usenet
postings to the appropriate mailbox at MIT.  They can filter 'em
as they wish...

There are some groups of this type already; comp.risks, for example.

-- 
				tom lane
Internet: tgl@zog.cs.cmu.edu
UUCP: <your favorite internet/arpanet gateway>!zog.cs.cmu.edu!tgl
BITNET: tgl%zog.cs.cmu.edu@cmuccvma