🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bco0oi0nh4@drn.newsguy.com>, blakenospam@newsguy.com wrote:

>Newsgroups under the bit.* hierarchy are only accessible as a newsgroup.

This is a lie, and a damn one at that considering the newsgroups are
mostly echoes of lists (hence the "bit.listserv..."). For example, the
feeder list for bit.listserv.skeptic is SKEPTIX, joinable at

http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/skeptix

In article <bco0oi0nh4@drn.newsguy.com>, blakenospam@newsguy.com wrote:

>Newsgroups under the bit.* hierarchy are only accessible as a newsgroup.

This is a lie, and a damn one at that considering the newsgroups are
mostly echoes of lists (hence the "bit.listserv..."). For example, the
feeder list for bit.listserv.skeptic is SKEPTIX, joinable at

http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/skeptix


>If you
>don't have access through your ISP, you might want to check out a service
>that specilizes in newsgroups like I use, newsguy.com. They offer
>accounts that start out at only $5.95/month.

Or you could just join SKEPTIX for free.

In article <bt6ukvsd23viem5osu0mi2g5blql8e7tba@4ax.com>, Garrison Hilliard
says...
>
>In article <bco0oi0nh4@drn.newsguy.com>, blakenospam@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>>Newsgroups under the bit.* hierarchy are only accessible as a newsgroup.
>
>This is a lie, and a damn one at that considering the newsgroups are
>mostly echoes of lists (hence the "bit.listserv..."). For example, the
>feeder list for bit.listserv.skeptic is SKEPTIX, joinable at

Huh, why don't you go back and review my reply and the initial poster's
question, before you start throwing around accusations you retard.

Bit.* is a 'newsgroup' hierarchy, so if you want to access the 'newsgroup' you
couldn't do this via email. Obviously they are tied with mailing lists, pretty
evident considering 'listserv' appears within the group name and any others that
fall under bit.listserv.*.

The whole point of having a bit.* newsgroup is to access in that format, as
opposed to an associated mailing list, which many, including myself, find to be
a tedious format for discussion. Particularly when there is a high volume of
message traffic. Furthermore, there are bit.* newsgroups that facilitate message
traffic from multiple mailing lists, not just one such as may be the case in
this instance.

Oh, and taking your comments out of context, like you did mine, "considering the
newsgroups are mostly echoes of lists". Talk about lies, and damn ones at that.
What are you talking about? There are well over 30,000 'newsgroups' within the
Usenet network, less than 100 of which are dedicated towards gateways to
exchange message traffic with mail lists.

Blake

blakenospam <blakenospam@newsguy.com> writes:

> Oh, and taking your comments out of context, like you did mine,
> "considering the newsgroups are mostly echoes of lists". Talk about
> lies, and damn ones at that.  What are you talking about? There are well
> over 30,000 'newsgroups' within the Usenet network, less than 100 of
> which are dedicated towards gateways to exchange message traffic with
> mail lists.

FWIW, your counts are very badly off.  There are *way* more than 100
mailing list gateways on Usenet.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

blakenospam@newsguy.com wrote in message news:<bjo7eo02l30@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >This is a lie, and a damn one at that considering the newsgroups are
> >mostly echoes of lists (hence the "bit.listserv..."). For example, the
> >feeder list for bit.listserv.skeptic is SKEPTIX, joinable at
> 
> Huh, why don't you go back and review my reply and the initial poster's
> question, before you start throwing around accusations you retard.


What a nice ad hominem approach to things.

> Bit.* is a 'newsgroup' hierarchy, so if you want to access the 'newsgroup' you
> couldn't do this via email. Obviously they are tied with mailing lists, pretty
> evident considering 'listserv' appears within the group name and any others that
> fall under bit.listserv.*.

You just figured that out, eh?
 
> The whole point of having a bit.* newsgroup is to access in that format, as
> opposed to an associated mailing list, which many, including myself, find to be
> a tedious format for discussion. Particularly when there is a high volume of
> message traffic. 

Learn about list digests.

>Furthermore, there are bit.* newsgroups that facilitate message
> traffic from multiple mailing lists, not just one such as may be the case in
> this instance.

This is true, and a nice point brought up by you.

> Oh, and taking your comments out of context, like you did mine, "considering the
> newsgroups are mostly echoes of lists". Talk about lies, and damn ones at that.
> What are you talking about? There are well over 30,000 'newsgroups' within the
> Usenet network, less than 100 of which are dedicated towards gateways to
> exchange message traffic with mail lists.

I was, of course, speaking solely about the bit. newsgroup hierarchy.

In article <87oexsdyut.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>, Russ Allbery says...
>
>blakenospam <blakenospam@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> Oh, and taking your comments out of context, like you did mine,
>> "considering the newsgroups are mostly echoes of lists". Talk about
>> lies, and damn ones at that.  What are you talking about? There are well
>> over 30,000 'newsgroups' within the Usenet network, less than 100 of
>> which are dedicated towards gateways to exchange message traffic with
>> mail lists.
>
>FWIW, your counts are very badly off.  There are *way* more than 100
>mailing list gateways on Usenet.

Russ,

My reference was to those that fall under the bit.* hierarchy. While I know
there used to be a lot more when bit.* was handled by American University, most
of the obsolete ones were weeded out. The current official count I see is 53.

Blake

blakenospam <blakenospam@newsguy.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery says...
>> blakenospam <blakenospam@newsguy.com> writes:

>>> Oh, and taking your comments out of context, like you did mine,
>>> "considering the newsgroups are mostly echoes of lists". Talk about
>>> lies, and damn ones at that.  What are you talking about? There are
>>> well over 30,000 'newsgroups' within the Usenet network, less than 100
>>> of which are dedicated towards gateways to exchange message traffic
>>> with mail lists.

>> FWIW, your counts are very badly off.  There are *way* more than 100
>> mailing list gateways on Usenet.

> My reference was to those that fall under the bit.* hierarchy. While I
> know there used to be a lot more when bit.* was handled by American
> University, most of the obsolete ones were weeded out. The current
> official count I see is 53.

If you're trying to say that there are fewer than 100 newsgroups in the
bit.* hierarchy, using those words would probably be good.  What you said
instead is that there are fewer than 100 newsgroups which are gateways of
mailing lists.  That's incorrect.

bit.* is far from the only hierarchy with newsgroups that are mailing list
gateways.  To list a few other examples, all of:

    comp.protocols.kerberos
    comp.protocols.dns.bind
    sci.psychology.consciousness
    rec.arts.comics.creative

are bidirectionally gatewayed to mailing lists, not to mention the
entirety of the linux.* hierarchy, much of the gnu.* hierarchy, etc.  And
those are just the ones that I'm personally involved with or have used.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>