Article View: news.admin.technical
Article #35Following Up to 'X'ed Groups, Revisited
From: Tim Pierce
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:18
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:18
26 lines
1682 bytes
1682 bytes
In article <Bz5pyw.CF4@unix.amherst.edu> I wrote: >Shouldn't the posting >mechanism post the article to the groups which *are* valid? Should >the x'ed groups even show up in the Newsgroups line when an article >lands here? I've gotten a lot of feedback on the second question, which I agree was not well thought out. It makes more sense to me not to rewrite the headers, philosophically as well as technically. However, I haven't heard much on the first question. If inews is handed a post with several groups on the Newsgroups line, some of which have "x" (or "n", for that matter) in their active file entries, why shouldn't inews simply post the message to the remaining groups and ignore the invalid ones? (After warning the user that some of the specified newsgroups are disabled locally, of course.) I can't think of any situation in which I wouldn't want this to happen. I'm new to news administration -- a fact which should probably come as news to few of you -- so I apologize if this is a FAQ. -- ____ Tim Pierce / \ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / Rocks say goodbye. \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<BzJKCF.IMC@unix.amherst.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!scottReferences:
<Bz5pyw.CF4@unix.amherst.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: news.admin.technical,news.software.readers Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!scott From: Tim Pierce <twpierce@unix.amherst.EDU> Subject: Following Up to 'X'ed Groups, Revisited Message-ID: <BzJKCF.IMC@unix.amherst.edu> Sender: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division References: <Bz5pyw.CF4@unix.amherst.edu> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:18:41 GMT Approved: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG Lines: 27