Re: Cross-posting to *.answers

---------

Edward Reid (ed@titipu.resun.com)
Sat, 19 Feb 94 10:35:54 EST(-0500)


mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish) writes:
> found it to be a singularly anal and restrictive format.

Exactly what did you find "anal and restrictive"? The only additions to a
normal cross-posting that are actually required by the spec are

a Followup-To: main header
an Archive-Name: secondary header

The need for a Followup-To is mostly an artifact of how news software works
and is a strong candidate for use in any moderated newsgroup. The
Archive-Name enables archiving at rtfm.mit.edu. As one who has used those
archives, I think the effort expended by the FAQ maintainer to include this
item is extraordinarily small compared to the benefit.

The guidelines do indeed lack a good summary section that says "if you don't
have a computer programmer's patience for detail, here's the minimum that
we recommend". Probably wouldn't take more than about 400 words. Hmm,
that's exactly how long your rant was ...

> Some of us *do not have the time* to learn the hermetics of the secondary
> headers of FAQs

I spent less time figuring out the headers and maintaining them for a year
than you spent writing this message.

--
Edward Reid    ed@titipu.resun.com (normal)      \ reide@freenet.fsu.edu
PO Box 378     Edward_Reid@acm.org (forwarding)   \     (seldom checked)
Greensboro FL  faqmail@titipu.resun.com (regarding m.h.diabetes FAQ)


[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]

---------

faq-admin@landfield.com

© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved