Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!dutrun!leo
From: leo@duttnph.tudelft.nl (Leo Breebaart)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Priority scheme for comp.sys.mac.binaries?
Message-ID: <1076@dutrun.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jan 90 09:57:02 GMT
References: <1330@husc6.harvard.edu>
Sender: tnphnws@dutrun.UUCP
Reply-To: leo@duttnph.UUCP (Leo Breebaart)
Organization: Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 22

David C. Kovar suggests a priority scheme for comp.binaries.mac:

>Classifications:
>  1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature.
>  2) Original freeware that fits in one article.
>  3) Original shareware that fits in one article.
>  4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications.
>  4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.]
>  5) Multipart shareware.
>  6) Demo/crippleware.
>  Questions, comments, flames, etc most welcome.

This is in my opinion a very reasonable classification, and besides saying so
I also want to take the opportunity to add my voice to the growing grumbles 
of those who are very unhappy with the way that comp.binaries.mac is 
currently being run.

Who *does* decide the order of posting in that group anyhow, and how come we 
haven't heard from him/her yet? This discussion has been going on some time 
now, and we might at least get an opinion or justification from the moderator.

Leo Breebaart (leo @ duttnph.tudelft.nl)