Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!dave
From: dave@lsuc.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: What *are* the can.* groups?
Message-ID: <1847@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jun-87 08:36:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: lsuc.1847
Posted: Mon Jun  8 08:36:38 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jun-87 01:28:48 EDT
References: <1421@ncc.UUCP> <2567@dalcs.UUCP> <1834@lsuc.UUCP> <1433@ncc.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Distribution: can
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 47
Summary: some trimming is appropriate

In article <1433@ncc.UUCP> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
>Here's what the active file on ncc says:
>
>can.jobs 00023 00023 y
>can.general 00124 00112 y
>can.politics 00182 00181 y
>can.ai 00006 00002 y
>can.ai.cscsi 00000 00000 y
>can.followup 00000 00000 y
>can.map 00000 00000 y
>
>			I will collect a list
>a post it next week. Then maybe we can come to an agreement as to
>what the valid groups are.

Make that "should be", rather than "are".  Lyndon, I believe your
collection is out of date, in that we (the Canadian Usenet) made some
decisions a couple of years back to cut out some groups, and I believe
rmgroups were actually sent out (anyone remember for sure? Henry? msb?)
At any rate, the fact your highest article number for the last 3 groups
is 0 kinda suggests they're not widespread :-)

My personal view and suggestion for what we should have:
	can.jobs	- useful
	can.general	- useful
	can.politics	- useful
These are "useful" in the sense that people will read them but not
their netwide counterparts.
	can.followup	- obsolete, since the "general/followup" pair
			  no longer exists netwide, and since can.general
			  can comfortably hold followup discussions
	can.map		- not needed, since comp.mail.maps will have
			  its Canadian postings from utai!path. Anyone
			  who specifically wants this can find it easily.
	can.ai.cscsi	- I believe it was agreed this is too specialized
			  and wasn't being used.

The only remaining question is can.ai.  If there is any group of
people who read can.ai but who would not read comp.ai, due to some
relevance of AI in Canada that isn't relevant to the AI community in
general (I don't believe this is the case), then the group should remain.

David Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
-- 
{ seismo!mnetor  cbosgd!utgpu  watmath  decvax!utcsri  ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave