Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site onfcanim.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!onfcanim!dave
From: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.news.adm
Subject: Re: hi, back for more abuse
Message-ID: <14900@onfcanim.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Jul-86 19:33:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: onfcanim.14900
Posted: Mon Jul  7 19:33:39 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jul-86 05:25:44 EDT
References: <299@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Organization: National Film Board / Office national du film, Montreal
Lines: 22
Summary: 

In article <299@ubc-cs.UUCP> andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>
>     The second class of objections is "junker is an
>asshole program that no one would want to see running".  I
>never offered junker as anything but an alternative to
>newsgroup cuts.  Ask the readers of net.x whether they want
>to see their newsgroup go away, or have junker run on it. 
>I think they would vote for some news rather than no news. 

Here is my strongest disagreement with Jamie.  I spend a fair bit of
time reading news, and maintaining news software, and even spend some
money obtaining it.  I would rather see a group dropped entirely than
have to pay for and read through a group whose contents have been
mangled by the junker.

Seriously, what is the point in forwarding articles that have been
mangled?  I think it would make far more sense to throw away every Nth
article going out over a link; at least then the articles that get
through would be worth reading.  (But no, I don't think this is a
good idea either, because of reposting problems).

If the problem is news volume, the junker is *not* a viable solution.