🚀 go-pugleaf

I just thought I should clarify some of the points in the message posted
by evan@telly.
 
E@T>As of now, the sites which either carry these groups now or will soon
E@T>(that I know of) are: attcan, becker, masnet, telly, tmsoft, utgpu.
 
I don't really carry the newsgroups in other than a gateway capacity.
I currently can only handle one feed and that is tmsoft.
 
 Europe.
 
E@T>There seem to be three or more actual nets in use that I can discern:
E@T>Quicknet, Relaynet and Smartnet (though I can't yet make out the
E@T>connections - or the differences - between them).
 
Smartnet is the US counter part to CanConfMail (which will soon be expanding
into the US).  
 
E@T>Here is a grep of originating systems, based on what's been sent
E@T>here so far. (There are only 70 sites identified in 915 articles.)
E@T>You'll notice the \xxx notation in places, noting where they have used
E@T>8-bit PC graphics characters in their "sig":
 
I guess I should put in some 8th b. Some of the messages broadcast their actual point of
E@T>origin on the bottom of the message - I don't believe it's a good
E@T>assumption that all unmarked articles (the majority) are from CRS.
 
PCBoard and the networking softare used (QNet) currently don't support
any sort of site identifier and as you can probably see parsing the
trailing portions of the messages is almost impossible.  There is a new
version in the works with a 3 part node identifier.  Hopefully then I will
be implementing proper Organization: and From: etc headers.  Currently there
is no alternative since the information isn't present in the messages.
 
E@T>The "From:" header says "firstname.lastname@canremote.UUCP", regardless
E@T>of which site originated the message. I don't know if e-mail to a person
E@T>at Zooman's Zoo BBS would get correctly routed. I also don't know if
E@T>Usenet pprefer that people not merge the ccm.* names
into the normal Usenet groups so that people will know these are CCM areas
and not normal Usenet areas.  I don't want CCM members complaining about
getting flamed by Usenet users for inappropriate postings in a Usenet group
since they are not posting to a Usenet group.  
 
E@T>My preference would be that the Organization: header contain the name of
E@T>the system originating the message, not CRS, and that messages contain a
E@T>header "Distribution: ccm". Would this be difficult?
 
Distribution: ccm 
 
will be added right away.
 
E@T>CONTENT:
E@T>
E@T>The jury's still out. There's a lot of garbage and some pearls. It
E@T>shudders to make me think that looking at a few hundred CCM postings
E@T>would have be *missing* recent ravings in news.groups, alt.sex and
E@T>can.general. There appear to be a noticable amount of broadcast stuff
E@T>that is really not appropriate for re-transmission (like CRS internal
E@T>policy statements or the CRS snths on how best to make use
of Usenet hopefully things will also spill over into the CCM groups.
 
E@T>Other things I've noticed is shareware authors unabashedly plugging
E@T>their stuff, and lots of PC hardware discussions. Lots of people apparently
E@T>like to tell the world what they're using and why they love it, even if
E@T>nobody wants to know.
E@T>
E@T>There are many "Re:..." subject lines but no references to previous articles
E@T>and sparse use of quoting.
 
Quoting is not implemented the chains will only last
so long (till they renumber) and they can't reference the Usenet MSGID at all.
 
E@T>Big - no make that HUGE - chunks of messages are of the kind that on
E@T>Usenet would be ghettoed in comp.sys.ibm.pc.questions. Someone actually
E@T>sent out a message asking what the going price of an EGA card was, and
E@T>another had a "sig" of "Microsoft products are tops!".
 
E@T>A guy from Quarterdeck answers any Unix-related questions with
E@T>"Well, why not just get Desqview?"
 
E@T>There's a lot ofage comp.sys.ibm.pc poster. There
E@T>is more specific coverage of applications like spreadsheets or
E@T>accounting.
 
A lot of the conferences are called "Technical support" conferences and
are frequented by the authors/maintainers of the appropriate 
software/hardware.
 
E@T>There's some stuff here that I'd genuinely like to see gatewayed into
E@T>mainstream Usenet. With ccm groups getting to tmsoft, attcan and utgpu,
E@T>it would be trivial to get this stuff to uunet and NNTP.
 
Would anyone beyond the local calling area really be interested in this stuff?
The other option is that they setup a local ccm.* newsgroup gateway in there
city if there is a CanConfMail/Smartnet node there already.  I am trying to
polish up the software to run under OS/2 and then I will release it.
 
E@T>But there is much to do r CRS is getting some Usenet. Is it ready for the deluge that a full
E@T>bidirectional gateway would bring?