Path: utzoo!utgpu!ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca!NDSUVM1!NETNWS-L Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 10:03:54 EST Reply-To: NETNWS-L Netnews List Sender: NETNWS-L Netnews List From: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack Subject: Re: Unix folks unhappy about bit groups X-To: NETNWS-L Netnews List X-cc: nntp-managers@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu To: UofToronto LAN redistribution Message-ID: <90Feb13.124221est.58308@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> Newsgroups: list.netnws-l Distribution: ut Approved: devnull@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu >> == Ed Vielmetti (sp?) > == Laura Littleton > >Another problem with the gatewaying as it's set up now is that > >there doesn't seem to be a current list of all of the bit groups, > >information on them, and where messages to the group need to be > >sent to. > > I have a such a list. It is available from LISTSERV at PSUVM with > GET NETNEWS MODERATO and GET NETNEWS DESCRIBE. I could post a checkgroups > if that would help. I don't see anything in the RFC on how moderators > should be listed in the checkgroups, though. NNTP-people ... the NETNWS-L people have started talking about gatewaying problems 'tween "us" and "them" because Erik contacted Laura recently. Part of the problem with the co-existance of Usenet & the bit.all sub-culture is that a lot of the Usenet practices simply are not documented in the RFC. Instead they are passed around `verbally'. Other pieces of the arcane lore of running Usenet are in Gene's Postings which appear in various news.all groups. But then the bit.all people have their own practices which aren't well enough advertised ... I suggest more interaction between the two groups. Neither group fully understands what the other does .. I wish I had more time to help improve the understanding on each side of the fence but I just don't. BTW, Laura, "handling a Message-ID: properly" means ****NO**** mangling of the contents and DO ****NOT**** lose the contents You should treat the Message-ID: as a *string* whose contents are inviolate and uninterpreted. Pass the Message-ID: along in any instance of the message you are handling. Use it as a "key" for finding the message in a database. Use it however you like. But do not do anything to the contents -- that string is what should be used to uniquely identify **THAT** message, if it were changed or lost then that message is **NO**LONGER** identifiable as being itself. -- <- David Herron; an MMDF guy <- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <- Coming to a nameserver near you --SOON--: david@davids.mmdf.com <- (until then, david%davids.mmdf.com@rutgers.edu will work) -- <- David Herron; an MMDF guy <- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <- Coming to a nameserver near you --SOON--: david@davids.mmdf.com <- (until then, david%davids.mmdf.com@rutgers.edu will work)