Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ars
From: ars@burl.UUCP (ars)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: Packet radio digest on net.ham-radio -- A BAD IDEA
Message-ID: <727@burl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 08:17:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: burl.727
Posted: Wed Jun  5 08:17:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 08:12:30 EDT
References: <675@vortex.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Lines: 40

> Without any discussion, I now see that somebody is posting the entire
> transactions of the packet radio mailing list onto net.ham-radio
> (the first such "digest" was over 30K bytes).  This is getting silly.
> The reason a mailing list was set up instead of a newsgroup was to
> avoid having the lengthy and fairly esoteric discussions about AX.25,
> TCP/IP, and similar topics being forced down the throats of net.ham-radio
> readers who might not wish to receieve such materials at this time.
> 
> Anybody on the nets can subscribe directly to the list if they
> are interested in the topic.  Posting all of the transactions to
> net.ham-radio simply doubles the traffic to the members of the list,
> most of whom are already receiving net.ham-radio.  This is costing
> people REAL MONEY.  If there is a massive outcry for all the nitty-
> gritty packet radio technical discussions and arguing to be widely
> posted, then a separate newsgroup should be used.  In that case the
> mailing list could be dissolved.  But having the mailing list and 
> then reposting to net.ham-radio is just wasting disk space and money.
> 
> Personally, I think that this is a classic case where mailing lists
> are superior to newsgroups.  But it should be EITHER the mailing
> list OR a SEPARATE newsgroup apart from the top-level net.ham-radio.
> I would prefer to see the former.  But it is extremely wasteful
> to do both.
> 
> --Lauren--
> 
> P.S.  Due to other gatewaying that I know is going on, there are
> now some groups of people who will receive THREE copies of all
> packet radio messages thanks to the most recent "digest" postings.
> 
> --LW--

For what it counts I appreciate the chance to view the digest
material.  If I knew of another way to obtain the material in the
digest, I might agree with Lauren;  however, as far as I know I can
not be on the Packet Radio Mailing List since our site is not on
ARPA.  If I am wrong please correct me.

Allen Shuff AI4G
AT&T Technologies, Burlington, N.C.