Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!chinet!rissa From: rissa@chinet.UUCP (Patricia O Tuama) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Re**n: A SERIOUS DILEMMA FOR THE NET Message-ID: <6654@chinet.UUCP> Date: 22 Sep 88 15:43:35 GMT References: <7086@gryphon.CTS.COM> <7090@gryphon.CTS.COM> <931@psuhcx.psu.edu> <1744@ddsw1.UUCP> <6498@nsc.nsc.com> Organization: Eniac Ink Lines: 38 In article <6498@nsc.nsc.com> nessus@nsc.UUCP (Kchula-Rrit) writes: > I would like to start out by saying that I am a new newsadmin(4 days!) >and I thought this group was for discussing issues relevant to running a >USENET/uucp node. My apologies in advance if I step on any toes. > I think what people are flaming is that the information content of >the messages in question is redundant and serve no use, except providing >revenue for the phone companies. This is one sentiment I agree with, >having visually monitored the modem when transferring news; it bothers >me that I am paying for five copies of the same thing, which to my mind, >translates to getting the information for five times the cost which >cheapens the (whatever good) intentions behind the message(s). Well, all I have to say is boy, are you in for a surprise. Postings saying the same thing abound on Usenet. Post a simple question to any of the rec.groups for instance, and at least five or six netters will post answers most of which will say exactly the same thing. And look what happened right here with our articles. There have been what, ten replies from people all saying the same thing, all complaining about the fact that we all said the same thing. It goes on all the time. > Yes, and I hit "k" when I saw the same message with the same subject >line for the fourth time, and saw 2 dozen killed articles. I finally looked >at one of the "killed" articles and saw that it was not the original article >but someone's response to the original. I then quickly hit "x" and >re-started rn, and saw that a lot of the responses felt similarly to me; >I was initially dismayed when I saw all the articles that I killed that I >thought were simply duplicates. So, we still have to sort through the chaff >to get the wheat; that's why rn has KILL files. Well, yes, that's sort of how the software works, dear. Typing "k" gets rid of the original article and all subsequent discussion. Hmmm.... I don't mean to be rude or anything but are you sure you're ready to be a sysadmin? at that point trish, bemused