Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!ccssrv!perry
From: perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Just how useful is crossposting?
Message-ID: <838@ccssrv.UUCP>
Date: 16 Nov 89 00:36:04 GMT
References: <47326@looking.on.ca>
Reply-To: perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison)
Organization: Control-C Software, Inc., Beaverton, OR
Lines: 28

In article <47326@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:

> Even if a base article does cover multiple group topics, the whole
> discussion almost never does.  And nobody bothers with followup-to headers.
                                     ^^^^^^

A bit overstated, I think, but certainly they are not widely used.

> I would think that perhaps if an original article is crossposted, we should
> ... insist the followups be in one group ... either a group picked in a
> followup-to line, or the first group ...

How about (as an amendment to whatever RFC):

    If the Newsgroups: line specifies more than one group, the Followup-To:
    line is required, and must contain either a single valid group name, or
    an email address, or the word "poster".  (In the latter two cases
    followups are treated as replies.)

Implementation could easily be made upward compatible.  New (or revised)
posting programs would prompt for the followup group, if not specified.
To maximize compliance in the presence of older posting programs, the
originating transport program (e.g.  inews) could check for cross-postings
without a Followup-To: and insert one, specifying the first-listed newsgroup.

-- 
  The "From" address in the header does not work.
  This does:   ... tektronix!sequent!ccssrv!perry