Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!dave
From: dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Aquaria
Summary: I seriously doubt
Message-ID: <60461@ccicpg.UUCP>
Date: 3 Mar 90 00:28:53 GMT
References: <EPY1163xds8@ficc.uu.net> <59874@ccicpg.UUCP> <90060.092750NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Organization: ccicpg
Lines: 28

In article <90060.092750NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>, NMBCU@CUNYVM writes:
> In article <60091@ccicpg.UUCP>, dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) says:
> >
> >Think of what would happen if every admin at every site decided to just
> >carry what they felt like.
> >
> >        Dave
> 
> Lots of people in higher managerial postions above them might be pleased to
> know that the Net Admin they hired takes his or her job seriously enough to    w
> know when to say when. Thus keeping the traffic at their site down to a
> managable level. Thus keeping the spool space from getting clogged up by just
> news articles alone. And other such useful and sound reasoning.

I was talking about the deletion of specific newsgroups in
a hierarchy for spite, not the removal of entire sections of
news for either admin or company (ie uptight management) reasons.

There are many sites that do not carry entire sections of news:
alt, soc, talk, etc.  Their neighbors know about the limitations
and get those groups from elsewhere.

Obviously, leaf nodes can pick and choose what they want to get,
but anyone with a large number of connections SHOULD carry as
much as they can handle.


	Dave