Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-sem.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-sem!ron From: ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie) Newsgroups: net.sources,net.news.group Subject: Re: rmgrouping Message-ID: <481@brl-sem.ARPA> Date: Sun, 3-Nov-85 16:45:23 EST Article-I.D.: brl-sem.481 Posted: Sun Nov 3 16:45:23 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 08:29:47 EST References: <259@h.cs.cmu.edu> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 22 Xref: linus net.sources:3469 net.news.group:3617 > Consider the following situation: An announcement about the availability of > a new version of the source to (insert name of program you hate seeing the > most) is posted to mod.sources. MOD.SOURCES and NET.SOURCES are not for posting announcement about availability of source. It is for posting source. This other shit belongs in one of the related groups. > > I offer this as a practical argument for keeping net.sources. Well, you're wrong. > I'm reading the news, I > can make a single keystroke, then type the name of a file and I have a copy > of the source. If I had to send mail to someone > every time, it would be a bigger pain in the ass. You can with mod.sources as well. All mod groups do is put a shit-filter on the input. You don't have to mail to people to get the answer. -Ron