From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Mon Nov 08 1999 - 14:30:06 CST
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> If we want to allow for it in the future, why not make the syntaxes:
>
> mvgroup old.group new.group ; group
> mvgroup old.group.* new.group.* ; hierarchy
> mvgroup old.group.* new.group ; merge
>
> We don't have to stick to Unix meanings, after all.
>
> Though I'm not sure what use we could have for:
>
> mvgroup old.group new.group.*
Or we could just extend the current newgroup message which contains a
posting policy, like y or m, and allow the =new.group which INN users
will want in their active file anyway. No new control message, and the
meaning is human clear.
The advantage to mvgroup is that it IS a new control message and is
unlikely to confuse computers, just humans.
newgroup alt.paranoid =alt.paranoid.misc
mvgroup alt.paranoid alt.paranoid.misc
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me