Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Newsgroup Split Message-ID: <8912221426.AA14382@expire.lcs.mit.edu> Date: 22 Dec 89 14:26:17 GMT References: <622@codonics.COM> Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background) Organization: The Internet Lines: 16 I think some thought should be given to a split ... but ... let me toss out my own pet theory This is why I think a split is pretty useless. There are as many theories about how to split as there are people asking for a split. If you think we at MIT want to maintain that many mailing lists, think again. Now, if you don't mind having the Internet xpert mailing list gatewayed in both directions to every comp.windows.x. you care to invent, and take whatever level of traffic reduction this affords from the Usenet side, that's fine with me. I could conceivably be convinced to split xpert into two lists, but I really doubt you can get agreement on what the two lists should be. For example, I would prefer to see an xpert vs. xannouncements as the best split. You hackers out there will continue to slog through countless mail messages anyway :-), but we're losing people who simply want to track major announcements about X Consortium standards, conferences, books, software, etc.