Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site masscomp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!masscomp!carlton From: carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: net.sources.d - its time has come Message-ID: <875@masscomp.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Feb-86 12:07:49 EST Article-I.D.: masscomp.875 Posted: Tue Feb 11 12:07:49 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Feb-86 07:47:14 EST References: <1018@burl.UUCP> Reply-To: carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) Distribution: net Organization: his home terminal Lines: 48 net.sources.d seems to get discussed in net.news.group every 9 months. The main objection to it is that sites archive net.sources, which gives them net.sources.bugs but not net.wanted.sources. I feel it is time to bite the bullet. net.sources currently is not worth archiving. Those sites still wasting disk space on net.sources should fix their software. Thus, I also propose that net.wanted.sources should be renamed net.sources.wanted. An automatic monthly posting should go out on net.sources, similar to the net.general posting. It does seem to have cut down on random noise on net.general; perhaps it could do the same for net.sources. I have been one of those "little Hitlers," fighting the secret war to keep net.sources pure. Its like spitting into the wind - even with rn's automatic inclusion of the reply message, and uupath finding the shortest path back to them. Another software solution would be to have some backbone sites add a Followup-to: net.sources.d line to every article in their spool directory. What follows the .signature break is the "little Hitler" birdie that I have been sending out to misusers. Carl Hommel ...!masscomp!carlton -- This reply is about your recent posting to the net.sources newsgroup. I believe that your posting was inappropriate for the stated purpose of the newsgroup: publishing source code and documentation. Requests for copies of source code should be posted in net.wanted.sources. Bug fixes and enhancements to already-posted code should be submitted to net.sources.bugs. Requests for clarification of posted items should be directed *by mail* to the author(s) of the software in question. If you have not already done so, read the items in the newsgroup net.announce.newusers. If you have read those articles, please read them again. It is very clearly stated in a number of places that net.sources is *not* for discussion or requests. You are being rude by not observing established net etiquette for net.sources. You also should consider cancelling your article. Thank you, <>