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