Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!amdcad!sun!decwrl!pyramid!voder!tolerant!zorch!scott
From: scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Mailing list announcement
Message-ID: <407@zorch.UU.NET>
Date: 3 Feb 88 15:33:48 GMT
References: <403@zorch.UU.NET> <1061@bakerst.UUCP> <406@zorch.UU.NET> <1066@bakerst.UUCP>
Reply-To: scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Organization: At Home; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 62

In article <1066@bakerst.UUCP> kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) writes:
>In article <406@zorch.UU.NET> scott@zorch.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
>Now wait - let's keep this civil.  

My apologies.  I over-reacted.

>Mostly, I spend my time trying to arrange direct feeds, not mail routes,  
>for people who say they'd like to get the unix-pc.* groups.  I have
>suggested the mail method - and used it myself - when a direct feed
>was not available, which hasn't been very often.  

Direct feeds are a good idea, when they can be used.  Problems with the above
that I can think of:  a significant number of Unix-PC owners don't carry
news on their system - what news they do read is at work, where they don't
administers the system and no-one has the time to set them up; feeds may only
be available long-distance, and the cost (even if small) is prohibitive.  Now,
I'm certainly not going to fault a Unix-PC owner for *not* running News; it
is definitely a hairy piece of software, even 'just' to install.

>>2)  A gateway is *automatic*.  It puts no requirements on posters to make
>>intelligent choices.  And it has been shown time and again through the
>>experience of the Usenet that posters by and large *don't* make intelligent
>>choices;
>
>Well, now that you've insulted *everyone* indiscriminately ...  :-)

If the shoe fits...  After I wrote the above, I *made* *sure* that I went
back and examined my outgoing header.  Despite all of the safeguards and
checks built into Pnews (I don't know about postnews) people still post
indiscriminately; just observe the number of people saying 'get that
discussion out of here!'

>So let me ask you another question - just out of curiosity:  Are you
>also planning to gateway UNIX pc articles back from comp.sys.att to the
>unix-pc net?

If I don't get broiled alive for my temerity in so suggesting, yes, I would
like to.  It's a rather more complex problem than just the original gateway
proposal:  comp.sys.att is a superset of unix-pc, and I don't know if all of
the 3B1/7300 owners would much appreciate articles about 6300/6300+/3BN (N>1)
appearing out of the blue.

>Including, e.g., responses to unix-pc.* postings that you're gatewaying
>into comp.sys.att?

If I can manage a reasonable gateway back into unix-pc, responses should
tend to come automatically.  The problem is one of discrimination:  how does
the gateway tell?  My best answer so far is to poke through the headers
looking for key words, such as '3B1', '7300', 'Unix-PC', etc.  This can
become very resource-intensive, though, and I'm open to better suggestions.

>Wasn't it a 3B2 owner who started this???! 

'Splitting comp.sys.att', I think was the original article title...

>Kathy Vincent ------>  {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy
>              ------>  {ihnp4|mtune|burl}!wrcola!kathy

      \scott
-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller   scott@zorch.UU.NET
(408) 245-9461        (pyramid|tolerant|uunet)!zorch!scott