🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Jul1.203114.8609@brtph560.bnr.ca>, cromwell@bnr.ca (David
Cromwell P865) says:
>There are a lot of people on the list who 1. like the list exactly as
>it is, and 2., are very concerned that a two way gateway to the list
>would result in lots of extraneous postings and would ruin the
>nature of the list.
>
>There is another group of people on the list who feel the traffic is
>way to high and who want newsgroup access.  The compromise was to have
>the one-way link.
>
>The r.m.b.b RFD is completely independent of the bit.bluesl proposal.

(1) If a mainstream group exists on the same subject matter, then it
    should be used rather than setting up another group on the same
    topic.

(2) Your statement above implies that the sole purpose of the new group
    is simply to make life easier for a subset of the 648 subscribers to
    BLUES-L. You may not realize you are asking us to spend machine
    resources gateway'ing the group, asking the whole Usenet community to
    spend resources sending these posts around the world, and then asking
    tens of thousands Usenet sites to spend disk resources keeping your
    posts on-line. This seems like a lot of money to just make life
    easier for a relatively small number of people.

    Perhaps those people who want the list in a group should consider a
    local gateway.

I am not in favor of asking tens of thousands of Usenet sites to expend
resources if their users cannot benefit from that expense.

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