🚀 go-pugleaf

> In article <2201@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes:
> >
> >Actually, the plan is for net.sources.mac to be replaced with
> >mod.mac.sources and mod.mac.binaries.  The latter groups already exist,
> >but I haven't seen any traffic in them yet.
> >{etc.}
> >	Mark
> 
> Amazing. I've been following both net.news and net.news.group for
> about five months and I've seen only a little discussion about this
> and never had read this particular solution.  But that is not my flame.
> 
> The thing that riles me is that our site apparently only got the
> newgroup message for these (and a bunch of other moderated groups)
> within the last twenty-four hours.  Praytell, how can this have only
> happened here recently when you state that these groups "already
> exist" as if they HAVE existed for some time and that everyone ought
> to know about them???  More than that, how could (for example) I have
> generated any traffic in a group of whose existence I was previously
> unaware?

Well, let's find out what the general distribution of these groups
is.  What does your site have?
We have:
	net.sources.mac
	net.micro.mac
	mod.mac
	mod.mac.binaries
We don't have:
	mod.mac.sources

Anybody else missing any mod groups?  How widespread is this problem?


-- 
Paul DuBois     UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois    |
                ARPA: dubois@easter                               --+--
                                                                    |
Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings              |
toward the south?                        Job 39:26