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 sdcc7.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc7!ln63fkn
From: ln63fkn@sdcc7.UUCP (Paul van de Graaf)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: A way to save net.sources.mac
Message-ID: <183@sdcc7.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 05:37:41 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc7.183
Posted: Mon Nov 25 05:37:41 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Nov-85 01:21:16 EST
References: <1308@teklds.UUCP>
Reply-To: ln63fkn@sdcc7.UUCP (Paul van de Graaf)
Followup-To: net.news.group
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.news.group:4702 net.micro.mac:3595

In article <1308@teklds.UUCP> davidl@teklds.UUCP (David Levine) writes:
>I've thought of a way we could reduce the traffic in net.sources.mac enough to
>placate the cash-strapped backbones into keeping it going. 
>
>One simple rule: POST NOTHING NOT WRITTEN OR MODIFIED BY YOURSELF.
>
>This rule would allow the posting of binaries, so those of us with no compiler
>(or who don't have that particular compiler) could still use them.

[ Sorry for the cross-post to net.news.group, David, but this isn't a flame. ]

A fine idea, but I think it inherently requires net.sources.mac change to
mod.sources.mac.  Net.sources.mac supporters:  Can you give an argument to
keep your newsgroup unmoderated?  The only ones I've ever heard are:

[ whining mode ]	"It's too much trouble to post to moderated groups."
[ sensible mode ]	"Moderation introduces a lag into the posting process."
[ silly blather mode ]	"Moderation is censorship.  Censorship is a bad thing.
			 Ergo, moderation is bad."

I think none of these arguments hold water when applied to a group which posts
sources/binaries.  If you have other objections to moderation, I'd like to hear
them.  By mail if you please.  If you feel you must post, keep it concise.
Thank you.

Paul van de Graaf		sdcsvax!sdcc7!ln63fkn		U. C. San Diego