Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ptsfa!hoptoad!dasys1!patth
From: patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,news.groups
Subject: Re: APPLE2-L
Message-ID: <1879@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Nov-87 07:33:58 EST
Article-I.D.: dasys1.1879
Posted: Tue Nov  3 07:33:58 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Nov-87 08:44:31 EST
References: <8710061747.aa16857@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> <1802@killer.UUCP> <369@altura.srcsip.UUCP>
Organization: The Big Electric Cat
Lines: 52
Summary: comp.binaries.apple2 LISTSERV@BROWNVM.BITNET pros and cons?
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.apple:3185 news.groups:1883

In article <369@altura.srcsip.UUCP>, shankar@srcsip.UUCP (Subash Shankar) writes:
> In article <1005@cadnetix.UUCP> pem@cadnetix.UUCP (Paul Meyer) writes:
> >In article <1754@dicome.UUCP>, Doug Plate says:
> >> limited disk space.  SO, APPLE2-L was set up.  Being on uucp, I have
> >> seen no benefit from this list yet, as apparently, the LISTSERV can't
> >> send stuff to uucp addresses on request anyway.
> >> [requests for means of accessing programs through uucp]
> >He was supported in <8710061747.aa16857@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA>,
> ><1802@killer.UUCP>, and <752@trwcsed.trwrb.UUCP>.
> >original article.)  A new newsgroup does not sound reasonable, but
Subash Shankar writes:
> I think a new newsgroup (i.e. comp.sys.apple.binaries or whatever) is
> reasonable.  Both the Mac and IBM world have binary groups, and there is
> certainly enough market for Apple 2 sources, as the last few messages i> Well, if anybodys taking votes, heres one vote for a new newsgroup!

Hmmm,
    I wonder if we should *ask* everyone to vote on this issue; maybe
we can discuss the pros and cons of a comp.binaries.apple2 group
to replace LISTSERV@BROWNVM.BITNET.

    What happens to BITNET people if comp.binaries.apple2 replaces
the LISTSERV?  Would they be unable to get the files?  Would
*everyone* have access to a comp.binaries.apple2 group?

    If and when a comp.binaries.apple2 newsgroup is created how
long do the files remain before systems delete them; are they 
aged and then deleted after, for example, 30, 60 or 90 days?

    Is it better to have LISTSERV so that old files can be killed
when they are replaced with new versions, i.e., BLU 2.0 is now
replaced by BLU 2.27 and is this a burden on Christopher Chung,
to have to keep track of which files to keep and which files to
delete?  Should *everyone* sending files to LISTSERV also send
a message addressed to Christopher Chung asking him to delete
the old file which has been replaced by the new version they
are sending?

    Sorry for all these questions, but I don't have the answers
and Chris is running out of disk space.  For example, Kermit
3.78 is still on LISTSERV even though the new Kermit 3.79 
              replaces it - should it be deleted?

    With respect to BLU 2.0 - it might be worth keeping it because
BLU 2.27 won't run on an unenhanced ][e, so those users will need
BLU 2.0 to unbunny the BNY files.

    Is it true that we'll need 100 YES votes to get a comp.binaries.
apple2 group?  Who will tally the YES votes?
-- 
Patt Haring                       UUCP:    ..cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth
Big Electric Cat                  Compu$erve: 76566,2510
New York, NY, USA                 MCI Mail: 306-1255;  GEnie: PHaring
(212) 879-9031                    FidoNet Mail: 1:107/132 or 107/222