Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!amdahl!gam
From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: cleaning up the net -- software solutions proposed
Message-ID: <1810@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 00:00:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.1810
Posted: Fri Jul 19 00:00:10 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 01:01:55 EDT
References: <2982@nsc.UUCP> <506@oliveb.UUCP>
Reply-To: gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett)
Distribution: net
Organization: Blue Mouse Trailer Resort, Hellmouth, CA
Lines: 25
Keywords: net.flame, multiple newsgroups, inews
Summary: forbidding cross-posting is extreme; compromise offered


The following is a letter I wrote to Jerry (oliveb!jerry)
which I thought would also be of general interest and is
submitted for discussion:

I think forbidding cross-posting [to net.flame] is a bit extreme, but
I understand the intent and propose the following compromise:

	Allow cross-postings with net.flame but force the
	``Followup-To'' field to be net.flame ONLY.

My reasoning is that, while it may be possible to have a flame
that actually has some relevance to another group, the
responses and counter-responses are often pure flame.  If someone
wants to follow the, uh, discussion, they can read net.flame.

I would not impliment a patch to disallow cross-postings to
net.flame.  While I consider myself to be one of the more ``liberal''
types on the net, however, this compromise is something I
would comply with.


Gordon
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs}!amdahl!gam