From: Clive D.W. Feather (clive@demon.net)
Date: Tue Aug 28 2001 - 06:16:12 CDT
Charles Lindsey said:
>> I think the standard should say that local posts must be blocked
>> and the user given an error (please post to group x.y.z instead) as
>> otherwise the user will not find out what is going wrong and may post
>> repeatedly in an attempt to get the posts to appear.
>
> Yes. That is a fairly ruthless way of overcoming the followup problem,
> but would likely have the desired effect fairly rapidly. Unfortunately,
> such a ruling would fall foul of the rule that says only one of the
> Newsgroups posted to needs to exist locally,
I'm not sure I follow your logic.
Posting to groups X, Y, and Z.
* Group X exists on the server, Y and Z do not: okay. That's the
existing rule.
* Groups X and Y exist on the server, Z does not, and Y is marked
"do not post, mvgroup to W in effect". User is given a warning, and
must post to X, W, and Z instead. Now we reduce to the previous case.
-- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | DFax: +44 20 8371 4037 Thus plc | | Mobile: +44 7973 377646