Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!ron
From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio,net.news.group
Subject: Re: new group net.ham-radio.packet -- history/apology/future
Message-ID: <11326@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 14:19:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11326
Posted: Fri Jun 21 14:19:10 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Jun-85 03:55:06 EDT
References: <459@mtunh.UUCP> <315@gatech.CSNET> <11294@brl-tgr.ARPA> <776@plus5.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.ham-radio:2871 net.news.group:3182

> Ron, when creating a gateway group from Arpa to Usenet via a "net" group,
> is bi-directional capability automatically provided?

YES.

> 
> If not, the "mod" approach is better than the "fa" approach because this
> facility can be provided easily.

FA is not what I'm referring two.  FA works by adding a dummy user to
our mail list that really is postnews.  USENETTERS shouldn't even be
allowed to post to FA groups since they are supposed to be READ ONLY.

> 
> I would prefer to see all "fa" groups converted to "mod" groups, just to
> simplify the news software, and provide for bidirectional transmissions.
> As far as I am concerned, there need not be a "real" moderator for these
> groups.  Whenever articles arrive, they are automatically posted to Usenet,
> and the ArpaNet (if necessary).
> 
Find someone else to gateway then, BRL is not willing to support a lot
of UUCP mail.  The NEWS is obtained by a different route than blasting
out our phone lines.

+Ron