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