Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!pitt!unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu!tjw From: tjw@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: SRH (soc.rights.human) is up, but with problems Message-ID: <19297@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu> Date: 27 Aug 89 05:05:09 GMT References: <19391@usc.edu> <19433@usc.edu> <578@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> <19448@usc.edu> <4121@ncar.ucar.edu> Reply-To: tjw@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Terry J. Wood) Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services Lines: 25 In article <4121@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <19448@usc.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes: >>Greg Woods IS obligated to create the group if it says that to create >>the group one can send a message to that effect to "newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu" >you can send a message to that address. NOWHERE does it say that anyone is >obligated to respond to such a request. Nor does it say anywhere that newgroup >messages have to come from a certain set of people. Honoring only certain >people's newgroup messages is a decision made independently by certain site >administrators and does NOT come out of the guidelines. Perhaps the guidelines should contain language to indicate that certain sites are not the "seal of approval" of USENET, just in case someone has this mistaken belief. It seems to be the case, from what I've read, that some sysadmins believe that a group is only valid if it comes from Greg or Gene. While this is very convienent for the sysadmins (it means that they don't have to work as hard ;-), it is unfair to Greg and Gene to carry that burden. Terry J. Wood -- (UUCP) {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore, cadre}!pitt!cisunx!cisvms!tjw (BITNET) TJW@PITTVMS (or) TJW@PITTUNIX (Internet) tjw%vms.cis.pitt.edu@unix.cis.pitt.edu (CC-Net) CISVMS::TJW (or) 33801::TJW (or) CISUNX::tjw (or) 33802::tjw