Checksum: 58037
Lines: 61
Path: utzoo!lsuc!sq!msb
From: msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader)
Date: Fri, 13-May-88 21:56:37 EDT
Message-ID: <1988May13.215637.14811@sq.uucp>
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Wish List re: Crossposting
Summary: Leave it alone, mostly, but add warnings
References: <3938@gryphon.CTS.COM> <439@bacchus.DEC.COM> <52859@sun.uucp> <9879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto


Chuq von Rospach (chuq@plaid.Sun.COM) suggests:
> o restrict cross-posting across top-level domains. How often do you REALLY
> 	need to post to both misc.misc and comp.sys.misc?

This has come up before; the restriction is a bad idea.  First of all,
it is quite common to want to post to a local interest group and a
netwide group, or to two local-area groups of different localness.
Combinations like tor.news,ont.uucp are fairly often seen around here.

Once when this came up before, the restriction was actually implemented
on some sites (due to a misunderstanding, I think), and announced in
ont.general or some such group.  As this had not been discussed, I raised
the point in news.misc, and because of the restriction I had to make it
a separate article from my followup in ont.general.

Besides, there really are topics of discourse that cut across 
top-level-grouping lines.

> o Force a followup-to on cross postings. ...

This is a good idea.

> 	The posting program (postnews and/or Pnews and/or whatever) should
> 	generate a Followup-To: line sending followups only to the first
> 	group in the Newsgroups: line.

This is a very bad idea.  The same applies to David desJardins
(desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU)'s variation:

] ... that sites which receive crossposted articles with
] blank or missing Followup-To: lines could automatically modify those
] articles to include Followup-To: lines to the first group in the
] Newsgroups: line.

Chuq seems not to believe that cross-postings have a legitimate use
other than attracting wider notice to the start of a discussion.
In fact, this is probably their worst use.  If I wanted to read about
the physics of playing chess, I'd be reading sci.physics in the first
place, so there'd be no need to put the first article on the topic
in rec.games.chess as well as there.  Conversely, if I DON'T want to
read a lot of articles on physics, I won't be a subscriber to sci.physics,
and I will want to see the articles on physics of chess in rec.games.chess.

The most beneficial use of cross-posting occurs when a topic really does
fit in more than one newsgroup; this happens frequently.  (If it is
happening ALL the time, as sometimes seems to me to be the case in soc.*,
this is a sign that there are too many newsgroups and reorganization
is needed.)

The "first newsgroup" concept is wrong; the present default is right.
However, it probably should not be the default.  Probably there should
be *no* default; if you specify a cross-posting, you should have to
specify something for followups, and that would be it.

I would add that ANY act of following-up to either a cross-posted article
or an article with a followup-to line should cause the poster to be reminded
explicitly of what is going on -- AFTER composing the followup article.

Mark Brader			"I'm not going to post a revision: even USENET
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com	 readers can divide by 100."	-- Brian Reid