Path: utzoo!utstat!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!emv From: emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: Followup Containment (Was Re: followups to "*** ... *** ) Message-ID: Date: 16 Jul 90 03:05:02 GMT References: <37429@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1990Jul12.201422.883@csense.uucp> Sender: usenet@math.lsa.umich.edu Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor MI. Lines: 21 In-Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com's message of 15 Jul 90 19:14:11 GMT In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: No. Sometimes crossposting, even on followups, is the appropriate thing to do. It keeps a discussion that fits into more than one group from turning into two (or more) equal-sized discussions in as many groups. The question is not what is to be possible, the question is what is to be easy. This is a matter of news reader policy, not news relay policy. The things that shovel the bits from machine to machine should be largely absent of policies, esp. those embedded in binaries. That which is presented to the user should have reasonable but configurable defaults. Followups would go to one of news.software.{nn,rn}, gnu.emacs.{gnews,gnus}, or whatever other group handles the spillover of news.software.policy as opposed to news.software.technology. --Ed Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept comp.archives moderator