correct • elegant • free

△ news.groups △


RFD: uk.* reorganisation ▻

RFD: comp.os.plan9

In article <>,
Stephen Potter <> wrote:
>I'd like to hear from some of them (directly) as to their reasoning.  Could
>they answer (I'm assuming they are following the discussion), or could
>someone ask them to join this discussion.

Errm, you expect people who won't read an unmoderated comp group to read
news.groups? :-)

When the formation of a newsgroup was discussed on the 9fans mailing
list, Phil Winterbottom said:

    I suspect we are unlikely to read
    an umoderated group. They drift off
    subject too much.

And Rob Pike quoted a message about ET spammed to the list with the

    and you wonder why we want a moderated newsgroup

>                                           Judging by the other comp.*
>groups that I am involved in, I do see a need or understand the reasons
>behind wanting it moderated.

[ I assume there is a "not" missing from that sentence. ]

Quite simply because it will be a better group if it is moderated.  The
opportunity of having the Plan 9 developers actively involved in the
newsgroup (as they are on the mailing list) is far too valuable to pass

Tim Goodwin        | "BIND does not like VM." -- Paul Vixie
Public IP Exchange |

Original headers:

From: (Tim Goodwin)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.plan9
Date: 10 May 1995 17:57:04 +0100
Organization: PIPEX, 216 Science Park, Cambridge, England
Message-ID: <3oqr90$>
References: <3o8lgo$s1e@rodan.UU.NET> <3oaqcb$>
  <3oat0n$> <>

△ news.groups △


RFD: uk.* reorganisation ▻