Subject:
|
Re: Mailing list gateways
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:00:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2002 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman (lehman@javanet.com) wrote:
> sparre@sys-323.risoe.dk (Jacob Sparre Andersen) writes:
[...]
> > It might. My main problem is that I think you aren't supposed to have
> > groups placed in other groups, only in "categories".
>
> 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 happen all the time on Usenet, don't they?
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 are terminated.
> Although super-general things like comp.lang or rec.toys don't exist, more
> specific (but still fairly general) newsgroups like comp.ai, comp.databases,
> and comp.programming all exist as real newsgroups with sub-groups.
I am pretty sure they have been replaced by comp.ai.misc,
comp.databases.misc, and comp.programming.misc.
> Are there taxonomical reasons for avoiding sub-groups of
> real groups, or is it just one of those FUD[1] things that
> we all hear at one time or another and pass along? Maybe
> it has to do with traffic... Something so general as a
> comp.lang or a rec.toys would have a zillion messages a
> day, whereas something like lugnet.cad is very low-traffic
> in comparison.
I don't think it's a matter of traffic. I haven't looked for
any RFC's on the topic, but I know at least one newsreader
that assumes that all newsgroups are leaves in the hierachy.
[...]
> > lugnet.cad.general follows the style from other Lugnet groups.
>
> I forget where the name lugnet.admin.general came from,
> but I kinda wish that it had been named simply
> lugnet.admin. lugnet.general is a special case because it
> sounded silly to simply have a newsgroup called just plain
> lugnet. (Those are the only two groups that have the
> .general suffix.)
Then we should probably use ".misc" as on Usenet (if we
decide to rename lugnet.cad).
[...]
> > If it's
> > too much work to move the articles from lugnet.cad to a new group, we
> > can keep lugnet.cad it as it is now,
>
> It's certainly possible, but it's not something that I'd
> look forward at all to doing. :)
Then lets skip that suggestion.
[...]
> > and just add lugnet.cad.developers.
>
> Say, perhaps instead of .developers, maybe .development?
No problem.
[...]
> On that note, are there other "intimidating" words with
> the same level of "stay out unless you're a real
> wizard/geek" as .developers has? Does .internals or
> sw-development or .software-dev or anything like that
> still work and also keep newbies and "regular users" out?
I think they would work. Another option is .programming. But
it leaves out the part development.
Play well,
Jacob
----------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: Jacob.Sparre.Andersen@risoe.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://hugin.risoe.dk/> --
----------------------------------------------
LEGO: MOC+++c TO+++(6543) TC+++(8880) AQ+++ BV-- #++ S LS++ A-/+ YB72m
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
80 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
|
|
|
|
