Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: fa -> mod discussion (LONG!)
Message-ID: <835@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 15:57:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.835
Posted: Tue Oct  8 15:57:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 07:27:49 EDT
References: <10570@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 26

Sometimes I shudder at some of the important things starting to be
handled via electronic mail discussions, when I see how easy it is
for misunderstandings to occur in this medium.

If the posting rule states that ALL messages for the new mod groups
(created from the old fa groups) MUST be sent directly to the ARPA
moderators (lists), who will be the ONLY ones authorized to do the postings,
then I have no significant problems with the proposal.  No new
newsgroups are created (only the names are changed [sounds like
something from "Dragnet"...]) and replies might well be enhanced.

I assume that the Followup-To: line will point at the ARPA moderators?
And the addresses for these moderators will be in some form that
will offer the typical Usenet user a good chance of getting their
responses through a gateway back into ARPA? (That's quite a problem
for many people these days, as we all know, since the gateway
syntax is rather confusing to the layman in our current hybrid
environment).  The issue of people successfully getting their
postings to the ARPA moderators through the gateway(s) is the one
that most concerns me under this structure.

Sorry about any misunderstanding.  So long as the ARPA moderators
are the only people doing the "real" posting to these fa -> mod groups, 
I don't see serious problems.

--Lauren--