Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:48124 news.admin:8668
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!maytag!xenitec!geoffw
From: geoffw@xenitec.on.ca (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,news.admin
Subject: Re: canremote.uucp
Keywords: post vs reply or news vs mail
Message-ID: <1990Apr7.163149.7613@xenitec.on.ca>
Date: 7 Apr 90 16:31:49 GMT
References: <1990Apr1.033806.7505@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> <2617E217.13672@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <j1iaf117h@tmsoft.uucp> <1990Apr6.051709.25407@robohack.UUCP> <j1oslebhi@tmsoft.uucp>
Reply-To: geoffw@xenitec.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh)
Distribution: na
Organization: XeniTec Consulting Services, Kitchener, ON, Canada
Lines: 28

In article <j1oslebhi@tmsoft.uucp> mshiels@tmsoft.UUCP (Michael A. Shiels) writes:
>In the BBS world private/public mail are stored in the same "conferences".

   Speak for yourself; the PCBoard network is the only one I know of
whoich has no support for separate netmail. Fido even has a mechanism
whereby private replies in a conference are sent via netmail - basically
the same as hitting "r" in stead of "f" under rn.

   I have always viewed this as a major impediment to proper gateway
operation between PCBoard systems like CanConfMail/NorthAmeriNet and
Usenet.

>Any other ideas?

   Yeah - don't let people near a conference (Usenet or otherwise) until
you *know* they've read an explanation of what the mechanisms and costs
are. It won't solve the problem completely (i.e. there will still be
misunderstandings), but it will cut down a lot on the stupid postings
by ignorant users (and leave only the ignorant postings by stupid
users? <grin>)

   Geoff

UUCP:     watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent
Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org     | Kitchener, Ontario
FidoNet:  SYSOP, 1:221/171            | N2M 5E6 CANADA
Data:     (519) 742-8939              | (519) 741-9553
My comments do not represent and should not obligate anyone but myself.