Subject:
|
Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:44:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
352 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz wrote:
> One problem though is how to jerk proof
> it without having fuzzy rules (the jerk will just copy the mile long
> list of newsgroups to the follow-ups header), or putting an artificial
> limit on the number of follow-up groups (though I bet one could
> generally get away with a small limit on the number of followup groups,
> like a max of 3).
I can't think of a practical example for putting multiple groups in the
followup-to header. Maybe it's just me ???
I don't think jerk-proofing needs to be a *high* priority around here,
although it's good to jerk-proof when it doesn't impact the real users.
> I'd almost be inclined to require that any message
> with more than one group in the groups list have follow-ups set, but
> it's probably ok to say: "Any message with more than 3 (or maybe 4 or 5)
> groups must have follow-ups set."
Yeah, I'd go with your first statement. Require FUT when messages are
XPOST'ed.
It seems that on LUGNET, the major reason for crossposting is to draw more
attention to a particular item. With this usage, including a followup-to
header makes sense, and I can't come up with a reason not to require one.
Another reason for crossposting is to indicate that you are moving a
subthread to a new group. Definitely need a followup-to in this case.
If a message has information which applies to multiple groups, without a
clear indication which group should get the followup-to, then the author
needs to think about breaking up the message into multiple postings.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
| (...) There are reasons to keep a thread in multiple groups, see below. (...) Problem with requiring it on ANY cross posting is the discussions which legitimately belong in two or even three groups. (...) Because of how the web interface works (and (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
| (...) I mostly concur, I just sometimes wonder if it might be the best solution (of course the counter to that is that you get the jerks who work around the cross posting rules by posting individually to each group - but they can be TOSed). (...) (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
