Subject:
|
Re: Does lugnet.castle.org really need to exist?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:05:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
730 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Nathan McDowell writes:
> [...] We really don't need the basic
> castle.org unless there is more than one castle organization-
Its purpose is actually for talking about Castle-type organizations and
related activities whether those organizations exist or not -- i.e., to help
organize new organizations -- meta discussions. So it's intended to be a
dead-traffic group except for those times that those sorts of discussions
are needed. The .trains.org group gets significantly more traffic than the
.castle.org group because there are a half dozen or so train clubs and only
one so far has requested a dedicated subgroup for their club.
> Do people who subscribe to the 'castle.org.cw' group get all the
> 'castle.org' postings?
Only if they read both. If they get news via NNTP or SMTP (email), they'd
have to explicitly subscribe to both. If they read via HTTP (web), they'll
get both .castle.org.cw and .castle.org if they read .castle.org or .castle,
unless they're viewing the groups without subgroups.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Does lugnet.castle.org really need to exist?
|
| (...) I'm guilty of posting to the .castle.org group when I meant to post to the .castle.org.cw group. It's a slip that's just too easy to pull off and I bet that 95% or more of the .castle.org postings/replies were meant for the .castle.org.cw (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
