Xref: utzoo news.admin:7207 news.software.b:3208
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!coolidge
From: coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b
Subject: Re: Lets see what versions of news people are running
Summary: True, but not quite the same thing
Message-ID: <1989Oct13.195923.28758@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 13 Oct 89 19:59:23 GMT
References: <69987@uunet.UU.NET> <7397@xenna.Xylogics.COM> <1989Oct12.233424.28224@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> <25360BD9.16580@ateng.com>
Sender: news@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Lines: 29

chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge):
>>Yet another gripe about control messages: the granularity of control seems
>>a little too low. If I send out a sendsys, I (almost without exception)
>>mean to get just one particular machine.

>There already is such a mechanism:

>	$ mail usenet@machinename
>	Subject: A request
>	Please send my your news "sys" file.
>	adTHANKSvance.
>	.

Yes, that _does_ accomplish about the same thing. The difference is that
the sendsys method is automatic and requires no sysadmin action, while
the mail to usenet method requires active cooperation of the sysadmin.
This might be good or bad, but in general I think the sendsys extention
method is better because: since sendsys already exists, it's better to
allow a finer scope of control, and because some sysadmins simply ignore
mail to usenet for long stretches of time.

--John

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Coolidge     Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu   UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge
Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself)
Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed.
You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.