Xref: utzoo comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:890 comp.sources.wanted:4923 comp.sources.d:2637 news.groups:5270 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!purdue!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.sources.wanted,comp.sources.d,news.groups Subject: Re: Call for discussion: comp.sources.archives Message-ID: <681@proxftl.UUCP> Date: 31 Aug 88 07:40:23 GMT References: <222@pigs.UUCP> <6031@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <236@pigs.UUCP> <478@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR <362@pigs.UUCP> <6146@dasys1.UUCP> Reply-To: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale Lines: 25 Summary: Expires: Sender: Distribution: Keywords: In article <6146@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: : One question about comp.sources.archives: would archive sites be tempted : to post their entire file directory listings, with comments, to the group? I hope so! The whole idea is to get the information needed to find the stuff you want, in one place. It does me little good for someone to say "I have all of comp.sources.whatever except volume 3." How the heck do I know what *was* in that newsgroup? : Would it be too much to carry if they did? Should postings be limited : to "I archive these newsgroups and RFCs"? Will users post numerous : requests for specific files ("has anyone got this" etc)? Should the group : be moderated for the foregoing reasons? My current proposal is for two groups: comp.archives and comp.archives.d; the first being moderated and for information about what is available in various archives and how to get it; the second for discussion related to archives. See my message <621@proxftl.UUCP>. I have also suggested that we might want to keep an archive of the archive information. As I said earlier, I might be willing to do this, or to moderate the comp.archives group. --- Bill novavax!proxftl!bill