Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!ucbarpa!fair
From: fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. Fair)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: fa -> mod discussion (LONG!)
Message-ID: <10570@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 7-Oct-85 12:45:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10570
Posted: Mon Oct  7 12:45:39 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Oct-85 04:16:52 EDT
References: <10542@ucbvax.ARPA> <831@vortex.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.ARPA
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 65

Thank you for spelling out your objections in detail, Lauren. I see
now that we have had a misunderstanding, and I think I see the
substance of the misunderstanding. Hopefully the following question
will spark the necessary enlightenment:

Who ever said that there would be a USENET moderator for an ARPA mailing list?

I quote from my original proposal:

>> List of Moderators:
>> 
>> mod.human-nets		human-nets@red.rutgers.edu
>> mod.telecom			telecom@red.rutgers.edu
>> mod.computers.macintosh	info-mac@sumex-aim.arpa
>> mod.computers.vax		info-vax@sri-kl.arpa
>> mod.computers.vlsi		info-vlsi@sandia-cad.arpa
>> mod.computers.laser-printers	laser-lovers@washington.arpa
>> mod.computers.works		works@red.rutgers.edu
>> mod.protocols.tcp-ip		tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa
>> mod.protocols.kermit		info-kermit@cu20b.columbia.edu
>> mod.protocols.appletalk	info-applebus@c.cs.cmu.edu
>> mod.politics			poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu
>> mod.politics.arms-d		arms-d@mit-mc.arpa
>> mod.computers.ibm-pc		info-ibmpc@usc-eclb.arpa
>> mod.computers.pyramid	info-pyramid@mimsy.umd.edu
>> mod.computers.sun		sun-spots@rice.edu
>> mod.computers.apollo		info-apollo@yale.arpa
>> net.announce.arpa-internet	arpanet-bboards@mit-mc.arpa

I intend that, just like the `fa' groups, only the ARPANET moderator
will be able to post to the newsgroup. If a USENET person wishes to get
something into the list, it will be necessary for him/her to mail the
article to the ARPA moderator, just like the `fa' groups. There will not
be a moderator for the `USENET side' because that would indeed cause
the problems that you note.

Three things change with the new structure:

	1. the names become vastly more descriptive of the content

	2. mail reply to the article's author or followup to the whole
		newsgroup/mailing list both work (they didn't with `fa'
		because the software never properly supported the
		notion of a `moderator' to whom you mail your
		submission for `fa' groups).

	3. the software prevents (as much as is practical) postings by
		users other than the moderator (this was a constant
		problem with the `fa' groups, which did lead to the
		discussion sync problems that you cite).

The discussion sync problems that you suggest will not happen with
`mod' groups precisely because of the way the software works, and
because postings will be mailed to the moderator on the ARPANET by the
users, so that when the digest, batch, or whatever is distributed,
everyone who gets that list/newsgroup on BOTH networks will see the
submitted item (moderator willing).

In turn, the increased costs to zealous system administrators who wish
to track `both sides' of a lists will not come about, because the
discussions will not be out of sync.

	Did I clear things up? Or have I further alarmed you?

	Erik E. Fair	ucbvax!fair	fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU