Xref: utzoo misc.misc:2112 news.misc:1063
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber)
Newsgroups: misc.misc,news.misc
Subject: The solution to: Re: "We don't get that newsgroup here"
Message-ID: <693@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Date: 3 Jan 88 08:02:38 GMT
References: <2390@dasys1.UUCP> <1987Dec31.065249.24476@sq.uucp> <22364@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 49
To: webber@athos.rutgers.edu, fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU


In article <22364@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes:
>In answer to Mark Brader's question, my view is that using misc.misc
>to replace newsgroups that your site doesn't get is defeating the
>purpose behind having newsgroups in the first place. Newsgroups
>are topic separators, and I expect to find germane articles in each
>and every newsgroup that my site receives. ...
>If there is a topic being discussed in a newsgroup I don't get, it
>is pointless to try and use misc.misc to reach the audience of
>people interested in that topic, because they're all (in theory)
>reading the newsgroup I don't get. ...

Well, a few of them are probably reading other groups as well and the
more enlightened will keep an eye on misc.misc.  While posting to the
most specific group would get better results, when that isn't possible
and the situation doesn't merit going to the effort of getting a more
reasonable feed, it is difficult to see a posting to misc.misc as
being ``pointless.''

> Newsgroups are the names of the discussion space. Ignore that, and
> the network is doomed to death by uselessness. After all, what use
> is a network in which you can't find what you're interested in (and
> filter out what you're not interested in)?

Well, back when everyone carried most groups this was the case, but
that was awfully long ago.  Nowadays, newsgroup names are simply ways
for various systems to restrict traffic that they handle.  While it
sounds reasonable for a site to refuse to carry something like
comp.mac.binaries if they have no use for it, such a refusal is a much
more serious undermining of the validity of the name space than
someone posting a Mac binary (disguised as a cat poem) to misc.misc.
Each of these petty tyrants (both the ones who got into something they
just couldn't afford and the ones who think there is too much ``junk''
in usenet) has decided to take Usenet and twist it into something that
they like better and then impose their vision on their users and anyone
else who is foolish enough to rely on them.

The only fix I can see is to refuse to accept postings from sites that
don't carry the full set of groups (thus emphasizing the different
status) -- i.e., sites that carry the full complement of groups should
only read from other sites that do the same (regardless of who they
choose to write to).  Of course, since moderated groups are handled
via mail (and hence you can post to a moderated group whether you
recieve it or not! -- and receive it whether your neighbors like it or
not when the moderators choose to distribute via mail) they would not
be covered (or coverable) by such considerations.

----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)

  Get the full usenet/altnet -- don't settle for cheap substitutes.