Xref: utzoo news.admin:3527 news.groups:5464 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww From: dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Re: Call for Discussion: Moderation of news.admin Message-ID: <828@acer.stl.stc.co.uk> Date: 23 Sep 88 20:18:48 GMT References:<3147@utastro.UUCP> <699@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <1581NMBCU@CUNYVM> Reply-To: dww@acer.UUCP (David Wright) Organization: STL,Harlow,UK. Lines: 22 In article <1581NMBCU@CUNYVM> NMBCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU writes: # ... I'm only in favor of it being moderated, if Gene Spafford moderates ... Yes, I'd vote for that! How about it Gene? Up til now I've been against moderated groups, especially for the sort of discussions that ought to go on in this group, but things have got so bad recently that I'm changing my mind. We have two 'admin' groups (news.admin,news.sysadmin) which although having slightly different purposes are really about the same thing: my /news.admin/h:j KILL file for news.sysadmin sometimes clears every waiting message. So how about replacing these two by one moderated, called news.admin, and a misc group which stays un-moderated, and is still allowed to contain unrestricted junk, on the understanding that many admin's won't bother to read it? If you call that group news.misc then you don't even need a newgroup - we already have that very group. And we can ELIMINATE ONE WHOLE GROUP (news.sysadmin). -- Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww PSI%234237100122::DWW