Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!guy From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: nuke net.general? Message-ID: <2042@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Jun-84 01:24:10 EDT Article-I.D.: rlgvax.2042 Posted: Thu Jun 21 01:24:10 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 10:56:13 EDT References: <32@cbosgd.UUCP> <524@noscvax.UUCP> Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA Lines: 32 > I vote to keep net.general. I don't read net.followup, so I > don't care what you do with that. > If net.general were eliminated, the amount of junk in net.news.group would > expand exponentially, because people with > "new subjects" who now post to net.general would start demanding their > own special groups. But that's not what net.general is for! That's what net.MISC is for. net.general was intended to be a group for ONLY those important announcements that everyone should read. However, it's gotten so cluttered with inappropriate postings that some people have to unsubscribe from it, which defeats its whole purpose. > In fact, why not completely remove the ability to post to multiple groups? > I(d like to let my yes be yes, and my no be no; it's a pain > rejecting the same article four times. Then get your software fixed, or yell at sites whose news implementations split multiple postings into several postings. Correct news implementations (like the "vnews" running here) will only show such a posting once. Don't blame the people who post to multiple groups for the inadequacies of some versions of the news software. There is a good reason for posting to multiple groups - you may have an article which should be seen by all those groups, and there's no one group which all the proper potential audience subscribes to. Furthermore, followups to such articles are also posted to the same groups, so one has to make a conscious effort not to post the followup to all those groups. And if one makes such a decision, one takes the risk of not letting some of the readers of the original article read the followup(s). Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy