From: G. James Berigan (usefor@war-of-the-worlds.org)
Date: Wed Nov 10 1999 - 11:43:06 CST
Brad Templeton <brad@main.templetons.com> wrote:
> mvgroup src=old.group; dest=new.group
> mvgroup src=old.group.*; dest=new.group.*
> mvgroup src=old.group.*; dest=new.group
> mvgroup src=old.group.g1,old.group.g2; dest=new.group
> mvgroup src=old.group; dest=new.group; +alias
>
> Easy to extend, self documenting. What's to oppose?
How about that it is sufficiently different from the existing syntax for
newgroup and rmgroup that it could scare people off from implementing it?
Are you suggesting we do the same to newgroup and rmgroup? Are we
re-implementing the wheel as well?
Let's keep syntax defined in the standard simple and let the complex stuff
be entirely in the realm of extensions to our standard. We can make our
stuff extensible without shackling ourselves to the extensibility syntax.
(I do find the fourth example intriguing. I hadn't considered merging two
specific groups into a third in the same message. But couldn't that be
done with sending two messages: "mvgroup old.group.g1 new.group" and
"mvgroup old.group.g2 new.group"?)
BTW, shouldn't new.group be followed by optional moderation status? That
would also allow:
mvgroup old.group old.group moderated
I'd dig back to the discussion of how to indicate moderated status, but
it's kinda difficult when every message lately has the same damn subject.