Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Call For Discussion Message-ID: <8912121235.AA12214@apple.com> Date: 11 Dec 89 14:21:31 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: School of Business - U. of Connecticut Lines: 28 On Sun, 10 Dec 89 18:06:27 GMT you said: >In article <15801.apple.info-apple@pro-exchange>, rich@pro-exchange.cts.com >(Rich Sims) says: >>...I base that on my readings of the comp.sys.amiga >>and amiga.tech groups, where most articles are cross-posted to both, which >>just increases the density... > >I don't see how crossposting really is that big of a problem. Most news >systems/readers only store/forward crossposted articles once and you only have >to see them once. Doesn't really increase volume at all. What's true for USENET is NOT true for the rest of the systems the lists would be cross posted to. Both Internet and BITNET subscribers WOULD get duplicates. My own interest in the proposed tech list is low enough that I probably won't subscribe to it; certainly I won't if it's an unmoderated free-for-all. Members of local user groups probably would appreciate the output of an organized tech list. I'm inclined to vote 'no' unless the tech list is moderated (that doesn't have to mean an edited digest by the way). There has been some private mail seeking to persuade a likely candidate (someone who'd read the whole list and answer a substantial number of the questions anyway) to agree to moderate the traffic (so far, no definate answer). /s Murph [Internet] or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP] + Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)