🚀 go-pugleaf

After reading the policy FAQ in bit.admin, I proposed a gate into a new
group, sci.bio.ecology, and asked:

>>>4. Are there any objections to this proposal?

Richard H. Miller (rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:

>: Yes, one major objection, you cannot create groups in the mainstream USENET
>: simply by fiat. You must observe the guidelines for the creation of a new
>: [group...]

I understand this.  My next step would have been to do just as you direct.

doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) wrote:

>As I understand it, 'inet' newsgroups are gatewayed mailing lists, and
>a number of them have been created 'by fiat'.  They're supposed to all
>have 'Distribution: inet' in the headers, and only be propagated to the
>sites that want them, but it just doesn't seem to work that way.

For the record, I do not intend to do anything by fiat (although I would
like to "fiat luxcum pax").  My concern about the limited distribution of
all newsgroups that do *not* pass in a formal Usenet debate (that includes
the bit.* and bionet.* groups, as well as inet.*) motivated me to propose
a full sci.bio group.  However, the owner of the list in question prefers
to establish a gateway into a bit.listserv newsgroup.  I therefore withdraw
my proposal, and so this issue is moot.

-- 

      Una Smith      Biology Department       smith-una@yale.edu
                     Yale University
                     New Haven, CT  06511