🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4072@stl.stc.co.uk>, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) says:
>In the referenced article DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes:
>#In article <91050.181303JIM@auvm.auvm.edu>, Jim McIntosh <JIM@auvm.auvm.edu>
>#says:
>#>A gateway  has been  established at  AUVM.BITNET to  connect WIN3-L@UICVM
>#>with a new NETNEWS list bit.listserv.win3-l.
>#
>#Any particular reason to gateway it as a bit. group, rather than to
>#comp.windows.ms ?
>
>I was thinking the same thing.    We have hundreds of 'main net' groups,
>and loads of bit.listserv ones, and quite a few overlap.   That's a problem
>for users who don't have the time to read every single newsgroup (i.e. all
>users).   However there may be historic reasons which prevent the overlaps
>being fixed.
>
>Here we have a new gateway with no history.   Couldn't we have discussed
>whether it should have been to the existing windows news group?

I'm  sorry. I've  been away  at SHARE  all week  and missed  this ongoing
discussion. I  took the initiative to  get the mailing list  added to the
NETNEWS distribution as bit.listserv.win3-l.

The WIN3-L  list has a  fairly high  volume, and the  listowner indicated
that  he is  receiving complaints  about the  number of  messages on  the
current list without it being in  NETNEWS. He indicated that WIN3-L could
be  added  to  NETNEWS  as  bit.listserv.win3-l,  but  NOT  gatewayed  to
comp.windows.ms. The primary reason was to not significantly increase the
traffic on WIN3-L.

I  tried  to  explain  that  gatewaying  the  groups  would  provide  his
subscribers  with a  larger pool  of  people to  answer their  questions,
provide a larger group of windows  experts, etc., but the mail volume was
his primary concern. Since a number of local NETNEWS servers were already
subscribed to  WIN3-L, and since the  NETNEWS interface is a  much better
one  for  a  high traffic  list  like  this,  I  went ahead  and  created
bit.listserv.win3-l even though it created two groups with the same basic
purpose.

>Please don't tell me that the BITNET people don't have to discuss bit.
>groups with the main net - I know that.  But here's a case where some
>discussion would be a good idea.

No, you  are right.  I should  have stated more  clearly the  reasons for
creating this group, and even asked for suggestions about how to proceed.

>So - could the list gateway to comp.windows.ms?   Should it?
>The benefit could be better interchange of information about MS Windows.
>What are the problems, if any?

Right now, the list owner. The NETNEWS guidelines state that the LISTSERV
list subscribers  and the list owner  must agree to the  gateway. In this
case the list owner would only allow  the gateway as a stand alone group.
When I polled  the list prior to establishing the  gateway, I did receive
some mail from  people who wanted the list  gatewayed to comp.windows.ms.
Perhaps, in the future, the list owner will change his mind.
---
Jim McIntosh (jim@auvm.auvm.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA