🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Strait wrote:

A lot of good things, but...I have a nit to pick with you.

>  ... Newsgroup Administrators after
> setting up a newsgroup have a protocol to inform other Newsgroup
> Administrators that the new newsgroup is established and to please carry
> it.  

Not exactly.  The only protocol is the "newgroup" control messages. 
It's
up to each NewsServer (not exactly ISP)* to decide which "newgroup"
(and "rmgroup") messages to accept.  That is primarily based on
customer interest (see below).

* You can use Earthlink for your newsserver, even if you don't USE it
as your ISP.  You do have to have an ISP account, though.  It's likely
that some newsservers charge less for USENet only access than for
full ISP access.

> The tough part is then getting them to actually do it.  Many ISP
> Newsgroup Administrators refuse.  Mostly it is ignored.  Some say, "The
> channel is not available." (?)  I suspect many don't know how.  If you get
> a large local ISP to set up a newsgroup they will often share their az.*
> newsgroup feed with several other ISP's.  After that you are dependent on
> subscribers of each ISP that want the newsgroup to contact their Newsgroup
> Administrator and request they carry it. (They need to know the original
> ISP that created it.)  

Nope.  They don't NEED to know.  They may want to know, if they're 
interested in carrying only legitimate newsgroups, but they don't
NEED to know.  There's no record kept in the net as to who created
a group.

Furthermore, most newsgroup feeds between nodes (not ISP's, or
newsservers,
necessarily) do not specify the complete list of groups covered.

> ISP's mostly listen to their own subscribers, thus
> the group needs to be popular. 

Agreed.

> Keep in mind that posts to newsgroups
> actually are duplicated to every subscribing ISP's newsgroup directory
> simultaneously, not a central location. 

Again, every newsserver, with the headers at every node.

> That can take up a lot of room.  

... 

> I would suggest you set up a FAQ for the proposed group.  You need solid
> logical responses to key questions.  "Why can't discussions under this
> group be handled under az.general?",  "What posts would be on topic for
> this newsgroup?",  "How many people would be interested in this
> newsgroup?", "Why not just set up a listserver instead of a newsgroup?",
> "Would this group be moderated?".  The comment that their is no way to
> answer to it is "It would take up too much bandwidth."  Once you have good
> solid answers to these questions revitalize a CFD in az.general.  

That should be az.config, rather than az.general.  It's clearly
inappropriate to have the discussions in az.general.

> Bring it
> to the attention of a large local ISP Newsgroup Administrator.

Unless the net has changed significantly in the last 5 years,
or unless az.*'s charter specifically requires a Newsgroup
Administrator, you're wrong.  NA's have nothing to say about
what groups are created -- they have something to say, and
may choose to say it, about the groups that are propagated,
but that discussion should be done after the group is
created (provided that binary's, including pictures, are
not allowed, even (especially) in signatures).

--  
Arthur L. Rubin    216-5888@mcimail.com