🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <24APR199207361257@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:
 > Could someone tell me why the objections to the occasional
 > crossposting storm? It seems there could be two:
 >
 >   1. People prefer to read every posting in their
 >      favorite newsgroups without following threads.

Good news-reading software recognizes cross-posted articles and only
shows them to you once.  If your .newsrc file is set up to present
groups in your preferred order, then you'll see each cross-posted
article in its group for which you have the most interest.  In this
case, multiply-posted articles are a greater annoyance, because you
find them presented to you repeatedly in each group.

If you are using a true threaded newsreader (eg trn (and not nn)),
there is the possibility that some articles in a thread won't be cross
posted to the same set of groups -- but that's not worth complaining
about if the articles are posted to groups where they belong.

 >   2. People not on Internet have to pay for downloading
 >      by the byte.

Cross posting _reduces_ transmission costs.  One copy of the article
is sent for multiple groups.  Making one header line longer is clearly
a good trade-off for sending the article separately for each group.

The real problem is inappropriate cross posts.  The original
article may be germane to several groups, but usually the
followups tend to focus more (or wander), and discussions that
should be better targeted linger where they don't belong.

And then there's the followup that really should be a new thread.
It has no relation to its parent article, and no reason whatsoever
for being similarly cross posted.  These are the greatest annoyance.

So don't just proofread your articles, proofread your headers too!
-- 
______________________________________________________________________

Brent Chivers		McLean, VA		bchivers@mitre.org