Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm From: mwm@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: Nuke net.{general,followup} - (nf) Message-ID: <9100005@ea.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Jun-84 17:30:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ea.9100005 Posted: Wed Jun 20 17:30:00 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Jun-84 08:36:12 EDT References: <1071@nsc.UUCP> Lines: 19 Nf-ID: #R:nsc:-107100:ea:9100005:000:908 Nf-From: ea!mwm Jun 20 16:30:00 1984 #R:nsc:-107100:ea:9100005:000:908 ea!mwm Jun 20 16:30:00 1984 Nuke net.general? Well, maybe. I have a suspicion that the traffic would move to net.misc. Since anybody crazy enough to read net.misc probably reads net.general anyway, it wouldn't make any difference :-). I personally don't have any objection to nuking net.general, but others who read net.misc and not net.general may. Speak up if you exist! Net.followup? Might I ask where discussion of things announced in net.announce is supposed to take place? Surely not net.announce. Since these are followup articles, might I suggest that net.followup remain in place for such use. Of course, the other non-discussion newsgroups (mod.*, net.wanted, others?) should have someplace for followups to go. I've assumed that place was net.followup. Was I wrong? In either case, net.followup should *not* be nuked, as it serves a usefull purpose, and will continue to do so even in the absence of net.general.