From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 06 2001 - 04:53:14 CDT
In <yln15g68vf.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>I think you're incorrectly assuming that those systems are acting on any
>control messages at all. More likely they're just picking up any
>newsgroup that has traffic in it, which means that mvgroup wouldn't change
>the shape of this problem.
What I had in mind was sites that honoured newgroups automatically, but
handled rmgroups manually, or ignored them as a matter of policy. One gets
the feeling that a lot of sites work like that, for fear of upsetting
their users (or as a relic of the pre-PGP days).
>> There are two separate issues to consider:
>> 1. Would it be a useful feature to have, assuming it worked?
>I think mvgroup would be useful since it makes the semantics of control
>messages match more closely the operations that hierarchy administrators
>are trying to actually perform.
Quite so.
-- 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