🚀 go-pugleaf

Una Smith (una@doliolum.biology.yale.edu) wrote:
: >Being part of a poorly distributed misc. hierarchy is not my 
: >idea of better service for my customers ...

: But misc.* gets far better propagation than bit.listserv.* does.
: So by your own statement here, you should prefer misc.* (or rec.*)
: to bit.listserv.*.

Well, that's not exactly what I am looking at.  First, I am aware that 
the bit. groups are not universally distributed (or propagated, to be 
more precise), but that isn't exactly my concern.

I have done a survey and gotten some good feedback.  My wife and I are 
working on the results, but I have come across two clear things, so far:

   1)  Despite what some claim, misc. is not that well accepted and people
       have gone out of their way to let me know that they do not have
       access to misc. groups, but either do have access to bit. groups or
       can get bit. access.  One person clearly said that his sites policy
       was to NOT have misc. groups but bit. groups are ok upon request.

   2)  Rec. is clearly available to everyone responding, while misc. is 
       about 50-60%.

I did not have an objection to the rail* split in rec., since that would 
not be half the problem of putting them in misc.

Lastly, I think that the bit.listserv hierarchy really is the correct 
place for the kind of newsgroup I am proposing, since it really is the 
echo of the list, so to speak, and not the other way around.

** ------------------------------------------------------------------ **
**                 Geert K. Marien : geert@PANIX.COM                  **
**   ListOwner: AIRLINE, NODEINFO, RAILROAD, STAMPS, The INDIA List   **
**    (All contents are my own opinions - unless otherwise stated)    **
** ------------------------------------------------------------------ **