Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cbosgd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!cbosgd!mark From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) Newsgroups: net.news.adm Subject: Re: This bothers me a bit, so... Message-ID: <759@cbosgd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 26-Dec-83 12:41:11 EST Article-I.D.: cbosgd.759 Posted: Mon Dec 26 12:41:11 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 27-Dec-83 04:15:38 EST References: <252@cae780.UUCP>, <420@bbncca.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 27 This discussion comes up every once in a while. The conclusion is generally the following: (1) net.test is there because people sometimes have a legitimate need to post to net.something as a test. If we nuked net.test, people would start posting their test messages to net.general. (This has happened before.) net.test gives people a place to post test messages to so that humans (who are annoyed at reading them) can unsubscribe. (2) The extra traffic generated by net.test currently is insignificant. I suspect that there has been more traffic flaming one way or another about the subject than there has been making up test messages. Even if you cut out all test messages, you would not reduce the phone bills by any measurable amount. (3) Of the messages posted to net.test currently, most of them probably could have been posted to a smaller group, like "test" or "to.foo" or "cb.test". People do misuse net.test. In fact, the current policy is that all messages to net.test are supposed to have a body explaining why a smaller newsgroup was not used. Obviously some people on the net cannot read. (4) There are now apparently two places on the net that send automatic mail to people who post to net.test. This is plenty - assuming the messages are benign (and it sounds like they both are) and try to be helpful rather than berating, this is a useful service which reminds people of the rules and points out a better way. Mark Horton