Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: kehres@touch.COM (Tim Kehres)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: New Group: comp.protocols.iso.x500??
Message-ID: <9101100826.AA15398@earth.touch.com>
Date: 10 Jan 91 09:29:00 GMT
Lines: 34
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <47920017@hpindda.cup.hp.com>; from "Brian Atkins" at Jan 9, 91 1:12 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]

> Who would be in favor of a comp.protocols.iso.x500 group?  I know many
> companies have development going on.
>
> If there is enough interest, how do we go about getting one created?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Brian Atkins               atkins@hpindqj.HP.COM        (408) 447-2057
> Hewlett Packard (43LS)     19420 Homestead Rd.     Cupertino, CA 95014
>
> [[ Moderator's note - in response to your note, I offer the message
> below from news.admin.  To the mailing list members: this information
> is more or less specific to the USENET group comp.protocols.iso.x400,
> which is the USENET counterpart of MHSNews.  You will note that it is
> generally easier to set up mailing lists than to set up a new USENET
> news group.

The other approach that can be taken is to look at any Internet mailing
lists pertaining to X.500 and see if it makes any sense to gateway these
to the USENET.  This is essentially what happened with the two X.400
newsgroups, as they were Internet mailing lists before the USENET gateway
was established.  When we set this stuff up a few years back, the approval
process was very informal and only took in the order of days to accomplish.
If I remember correctly, Erik Fair installed the required changes at Berkeley
and we were up and running just as soon as the moderator addresses propogated
to all the USENET backbone sites.

On the other hand, that was a few years back, and the "rules" may have
changed somewhat since then.  BTW, one of the reasons we probably got
away with not having to go through a vote process is that the distribution
of the newsgroup was limited to "inet" (at least officially).

Regards,

Tim Kehres