🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <1992Nov14.235834.9723@dsd.es.com>
    rthomson@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes: 
>>This is one of the many reasons for moderating a sources group.  The
>>moderator would simply weed out any comments and not approve them.

In article <6803@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
	lilleyc@cs.man.ac.uk (Chris Lilley) writes:
>You mean, just discard them?

If they insist on posting discussion to the sources group, then yes
the moderator would discard them.  One way to prevent this confusion
is for the moderator to ensure that the "Followup-To:" line in the
header always points to the relevant discussion group.  I favor
comp.lang.postscript as this discussion group as there is not enough
volume to warrant a new group.

>Why? Are you trying to stop any of the
>discussion that would occur when sources were posted?

Of course not -- the point, which I think you agree with, is to
separate the discussion from the sources postings so that discussion
isn't archived in with the sources, etc.

>Or are you suggesting that the moderator(s) should redirect discussion
>to the comp.lang.postscript?

That is one option -- setting the Followup-To: on postings means that
this often happens without intervention on the part of the moderator.

						-- Rich
-- 
		      Don't blame me; I voted Libertarian
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, except as noted; Copyright 1992 Rich Thomson
UUCP: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!rthomson			Rich Thomson
Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com	IRC: _Rich_		PEXt Programmer