🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3975FE22.MD-1.4.4.padf@ihug.co.nz>,
  "Patrick Ford" <padf@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Terrance Richard Boyes wrote:
>
> > > > > Not a lot of traffic here is there?
> > > >
> > > > Not a lot, on the other hand if you want a lot of traffic you
should
> > > > see comp.sys.amiga.misc
> > >
> > > I'll put up a road block and detour sign.
> >
> > Newsgroups in non-existent hierarchies tend to be empty...
>
> Can you explain what is meant by "non-existent heirarchy" please?

A hierarchy that does not exist...

See news.admin.hierarchies, there's a regular posting of all the
registered hierarchies. amiga.* is not one of them.

See ftp.isc.org which carries an "official" list of newsgroups, amiga.*
do not appear in them[1].

Without recognition in those places most ISPs/NPs won't "carry"[2] the
groups (for one thing they won't even know they exist, and even if they
saw a newgroup they may ignore it). Which means the only places that
you're likely to see these groups are

a) servers where there's been a special request
b) places like Altopia (and Deja) which deliberately take anything they
can
c) extremely poorly administered servers

But there's hardly a need for such a hierarchy when there are plenty of
comp.sys.amiga.* groups. And the great majority of newsservers will
carry all the Big8 text newsgroups (which are the groups that were the
original USENET) by default anyway. Total traffic in all such groups
was of the order of 1GB/day

[1] well not in the actual newsgroups/active files anyway, eg the ones
that are mentioned in the INN FAQ. However there are a couple of old
control messages archived for a couple of the amiga.* groups.

[2] in fact some of the transit software (as opposed to customer facing
news servers) may well propogate the actual articles.



--
<URL:http://www.pierrot.co.uk>                              Team AMIGA


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.