 | | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) [...] (...) No. Whenever the depth of a hierachy on Usenet is extended, the original group is terminated, and a .misc group is created to handle what's not put in other groups. The problem is that some servers don't notice it, when newsgroups (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) I've heard that too. :) I don't think it's a Good-Thing/Bad-Thing thing. Note that sub-groups of real groups are a way of life in the lugnet.loc.* hierarchies -- and it's an important property of their usage. But sub-groups of real groups also (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
Todd Lehman (lehman@javanet.com) wrote: [...] (...) Yeees, I get the point. I was wrong. <grumph> ;-( [...] (...) nn, I think - a rather new version (showed up on one of the university machines approximately half a year ago). Play well, Jacob (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) Even if that were true (which it isn't; you can find zillions of examples where there is a.b.c & a.b.c.d and no a.b.c.misc), isn't it silly to require that a new group a.b.c.misc be created to replace a perfectly working group a.b.c? Anyway, (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) i know of one counter-example: Rec.arts.sf.written and rec.arts.sf.written....ert-jordan There is no .misc, and rasfw is a very valid and existing newsgroup. then again, I'm not an experienced newsreader, so there's probably others floating (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
