home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky news.admin.technical:91 news.software.readers:2528
- Newsgroups: news.admin.technical,news.software.readers
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!scott
- From: Tim Pierce <twpierce@unix.amherst.EDU>
- Subject: Following Up to 'X'ed Groups, Revisited
- Message-ID: <BzJKCF.IMC@unix.amherst.edu>
- Sender: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
- Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
- References: <Bz5pyw.CF4@unix.amherst.edu>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:18:41 GMT
- Approved: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <Bz5pyw.CF4@unix.amherst.edu> I wrote:
-
- >Shouldn't the posting
- >mechanism post the article to the groups which *are* valid? Should
- >the x'ed groups even show up in the Newsgroups line when an article
- >lands here?
-
- I've gotten a lot of feedback on the second question, which I agree
- was not well thought out. It makes more sense to me not to rewrite
- the headers, philosophically as well as technically.
-
- However, I haven't heard much on the first question. If inews is
- handed a post with several groups on the Newsgroups line, some of
- which have "x" (or "n", for that matter) in their active file entries,
- why shouldn't inews simply post the message to the remaining groups
- and ignore the invalid ones? (After warning the user that some of the
- specified newsgroups are disabled locally, of course.) I can't think
- of any situation in which I wouldn't want this to happen.
-
- I'm new to news administration -- a fact which should probably come as
- news to few of you -- so I apologize if this is a FAQ.
-
- --
- ____ Tim Pierce /
- \ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / Rocks say goodbye.
- \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
-
-