>>>>> "Pam" == Pam Greene <pamg@alumni.rice.edu> writes:
Pam> 1. news.answers is too large for some sites to carry
Pam> 2. news.answers is too large even to be browsed cover-to-cover
Pam> 3. some sites object to receiving "offensive" articles in the mix
Pam> 4. moderation is too burdensome
Pam> Of these, I suggest that only #3 continues to be as relevant as it
Pam> was in 1992. news.answers may be large, but disks and bandwidth are
Pam> much cheaper now.
I disagree. news.answers is still extremely large by the standards of
text newsgroups (there are only a handful of groups of comparable size).
I certainly would not carry it on my own personal server, which _does_
carry comp.answers.
Pam> Furthermore, with most Usenet service outsourced and news admins
Pam> harder to track down, I suspect that it's much less common now
Pam> for sites to pick and choose which newsgroups they receive.
You're confusing "sites" and "ISPs". Most Usenet sites are not ISPs.
Furthermore, I strongly suspect that most non-ISP sites these days _do_
take significant steps to select which groups they carry, if only to
avoid the huge binary flood groups (you can keep up with the entire
text content of Usenet with a dual-channel ISDN line, whereas to take
all the binaries needs most of a T3).
Pam> In short, I don't see any pressing need for *.answers, apart
Pam> from news.answers, and removing the other groups would both help
Pam> FAQs propagate past the filters that are becoming increasingly
Pam> commonplace
The problem here is the filtering, not the crossposting.
-- Andrew.************************************************************* To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here *************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved