🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Crpo83.8CI@freenet.carleton.ca>, af706@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Sean P. Maguire) says:
>Another point: If unidirectional gateways are such a problem, why
>do they continue to be offered as an alternative?

Because they are a technical possibility. They do exist out on
the net, and so they do need to be mentioned.

I have been trying to block out some time to rewrite the policy
on gateways. I will post a copy here to see what people think of
it. Basically I think it needs have more about gateways to
non-bit.* groups, and add a lot of disclaimer stuff about a
uni-directional gateway.

Frankly, I do not understand the need for a uni-directional
gateway to a discussion group. What do you expect to gain from
letting the Usenet people read your discussions if they cannot
participate in them? Why should thousands of Usenet sites around
the world foot the bill to transmit and store your posts if their
users gain nothing from them?

Jim McIntosh (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA