On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:20:53 -0800
Pam Greene <pamg@alumni.rice.edu> said...
> 1. news.answers is too large for some sites to carry
> 2. news.answers is too large even to be browsed cover-to-cover
> 3. some sites object to receiving "offensive" articles in the mix
> 4. moderation is too burdensome
I think reason #2 still has merit in some special cases.
For example, uk.answers has been deliberately kept small enough that it
can be downloaded and read like any other group.
> In short, I don't see any pressing need for *.answers, apart from
> news.answers, and removing the other groups would both help FAQs
> propagate past the filters that are becoming increasingly commonplace
> and make the moderators' jobs slightly easier.
uk.answers was chartered with an explicit rule that cross-posting was
required to news.answers, but all other *.answers were forbidden.
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
*************************************************************
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