Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!msb
From: msb@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: cross-posting restrictions
Message-ID: <1918@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Aug-86 15:18:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1918
Posted: Fri Aug 15 15:18:27 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Aug-86 16:24:51 EDT
References: <1986Aug15.033141.4997@utcs.uucp>
Reply-To: msb@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Organization: NTT Systems Inc., c/o DCIEM, Toronto
Lines: 31
Summary: This article should have been cross-posted, but I couldn't.

Geoff Collyer (geoff@utcs.UUCP) writes in ont.general:
> utcs is running C news, which has implemented some of the policy in B
> 2.11 news.  One notable feature is that, in order to prevent
> cross-postings such as (in the brave new world) "comp.unix.wizards,
> rec.auto" ... B 2.11 and C news insist that all newsgroups in the
> Newsgroups: line must be in the same "newsgroup class" (i.e. must all
> start with the same word).  This means that cross-postings such as
> ont.general,tor.general will be quietly dropped ...

This is a FEATURE?  I can see that a site which receives only comp,
or only rec (!), might want to reject such an article, but why on
earth should a site that receives both comp and rec want to reject it?

If it is an attempt to keep articles that are really rec (or talk) out
of the comp classification where they will get wider distribution, it is
terribly misguided ... there is nothing to stop people from simply posting
them twice, and the same social mechanisms for control will apply as now.

On the other hand, when an article is legitimately cross-posted -- such
as this one, which is going to ont.general (ont = province of Ontario)
where the point was raised, and net.news where it should have been raised
FOR DISCUSSION BEFORE implementing such a radical change... well, it will
also have to be posted twice, and that's a pain to those reading both places.

Geoff's signature quote was:
> ``Lack of planning on your part does not justify an emergency on mine.''

I'm supposed to plan for quiet additions of misfeatures?  I want this
changed, FAST, before 2.11 and C news do become widely installed!

Mark Brader