Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:31217 news.admin:5673
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!peregrine!zardoz!dhw68k!bytebug
From: bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,news.admin
Subject: Re: Problems posting to comp.sources.mac
Message-ID: <22632@dhw68k.cts.com>
Date: 2 May 89 15:07:22 GMT
References: <1316@tellab5.tellabs.CHI.IL.US> <2765@carthage.cs.swarthmore.edu> <12822@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Reply-To: bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long)
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac
Organization: Wolfskill & Dowling residence; Anaheim, CA (USA)
Lines: 61

In article <1316@tellab5.tellabs.CHI.IL.US> Ken Konecki writes:
> Hello everybody,
> I've tried posting some stuff (twice) to comp.sources.mac and so far it
> hasn't appeared (and I've waited 4 weeks). 
> Any idea on why it hasn't shown up? Is there any
> criteria for postings I'm not aware of?

No special criteria.  It's just that sources get jumbled in with all of
the binaries in the queue, and even things identified as source usually
end up being StuffIt archives which are posted to comp.binaries.mac,
regardless of WHAT they contain.  The comp.sources.mac newsgroup is
for human readable source, and many people find that StuffIt archives
containing binary resource files and binary Makefiles are more useful.

In article <2765@carthage.cs.swarthmore.edu> Nick Jackiw writes:
|
|Posters to either of the moderated mac groups (binaries and sources) 
|should be aware that there is a lengthy backlog (measurable in months)...
|the moderator either finds himself somewhat (and understandably)
|overwhelmed, or he enforces  (for reasons unknown) a delay policy. Only
|important Virus information,  Apple technical information, and patches
|to major commercial software packages make it through with any rapidity.

There is a lengthy backlog due to the volume of information that passes
through comp.binaries.mac.  Time sensitive information does make it out
quite quickly, and hopefully what I've considered time sensitive is 
considered useful by those who monitor comp.binaries.mac.

In article <12822@paris.ics.uci.edu> Mark Nagel writes:
>I think the problem may be more than that.  I recently handled failed
>mail to macintosh@felix.uucp through ucivax.  As is obvious from c.b.m
>posts, the actual address is macintosh@dhw68k.uucp ==
>macintosh@dhw68k.cts.com.  Apparently, when Roger left FileNet, they
>kept an alias for forwarding mail to dhw68k.  The failed mail I
>handled, however, had an error header saying that macintosh was an
>unknown address at felix.  The real problem here is that the moderator
>tables on backbone sites probably need to be updated to point to
>macintosh@dhw68k.cts.com.  I have notified Roger of this problem and
>asked him to take steps to correct it.


Please leave the submission addresses for comp.binaries.mac and
comp.sources.mac as

	macintosh@felix.UUCP

Mail should be sent to dhw68k ONLY as a last resort.  Any mail that
bounces from felix is probably a fluke, or due to felix being a 
poor, overworked Vax 11/750 running ancient software.  I continue
to receive submissions sent to via felix.UUCP and would appreciate 
it if that would continue until such time as I announce a new 
submission address.

>In the meantime, a workaround for this is to mail directly to the
>correct address rather than posting to c.s.m or c.b.m.

Mail postings to macintosh@felix.UUCP or post to comp.binaries.mac.

-- 
	Roger L. Long
	dhw68k!bytebug