Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: A proposed solution to the GEnie mess. (was about Rape and stuff)
Keywords: GEnie, email, Usenet
Message-ID: <15072@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 8 Jan 90 15:09:05 GMT
References: <946@crash.cts.com> <1989Dec21.000041.6034@ns.network.com> <1989Dec21.020140.24067@athena.mit.edu> <65046@looking.on.ca> <8073@spudge.UUCP> <25415@cup.portal.com> <3310@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> <446@fgp.hcru.uq.oz>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Lines: 24

( Talking about giving CPR to a dead topic... )

In article <446@fgp.hcru.uq.oz> andy@fgp.hcru.uq.oz (The Wubba Wubba Mon) writes:
>Brad has said that the formats of the two services (GEnie and Usenet) are
>quite different.
>If this is so, then what is the point of trying to link them into a
>homogenous system?

From an email standpoint it doesn't matter what the rest of GEnie (or
the net) looks like.  Mail should be interchangeable in a standard and
reliable way, as is happening with other commercial services like MCI
Mail and CompuServe.  I predict this will happen.

The other issue is gatewaying Usenet newsgroups -- and possibly digested
public mailing lists -- to and from GEnie Roundtable bulletin boards.
To attempt to gateway EVERY newgroup or EVERY Roundtable would be folly;
there is too much traffic, too much noise, and not enough benefit in my
opinion.  However, it may be the case that certain low volume special
interest areas -- where content transcends system of origin -- would
enjoy gatewaying.

-- 
"We plan absentee ownership.  I'll stick to       `o'   Tom Neff
 building ships." -- George Steinbrenner, 1973    o"o   tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET