🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <0099C71D.CF1A2BFD@netins.net>, grobe@netins.net wrote:
> In article <4deupc$d6k@t3.mscf.uky.edu>, abbott@news-host.ms.uky.edu
(Joel Abbott) writes:
> >hello.  i run several mailing lists which i would like to gateway
> >to newsgroups. ...[snip]...
> >would be better?  these lists are not listserv lists
> >so using the bit.listserv.XXX didn't seem appropriate.
> >what does everyone think?
>
> I am cross-posting this to bit.admin so the administrator of that
> hierarchy can comment on the use of the bit.* hierarchy.

The "listserv" in the bit.listserv.* names is unfortunate. For a while 
we actively encouraged people to pick more meaningful names (eg,
"bit.org.peace-corps") but people kept insisting on the "listserv"
so we gave up suggesting other names. There are certainly a number of
bit.listserv.* groups which are gatewayed to lists run by other 
Mailing List Managers such as Listproc and MajorDomo. Although L-Soft
(the people who developed and market Listserv) would probably object,
the "listserv" in bit.listserv.* can more properly be thought of as
a generic word meaning "mailing list".

> My preference is that any gatewayed mailing lists to alt.* groups be
> in the appropriate classification such as alt.music, as they will be
> easier to find that way.

The alt hierarchy has a larger propigation than does the bit 
hierarchy. Given a choice, I would opt for the alt hierarchy if
a significant portion of your potential readers have it at their
sites. Run a survey among those who want to read these lists in
news and see which hierarchy is carried at more of their sites.
Then set up the groups in that hierarchy.

Once you do set up the gateways, send a note to David Tale 
(tale@uunet.uu.net). David maintains a list (posted regularly
to bit.admin and some of the news.* groups) of all newsgroups
available in mailing lists (and vice versa).

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