Re: Encoded newsgroup-names

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Clive D.W. Feather (clive@demon.net)
Date: Mon Jul 22 2002 - 08:20:49 CDT


Charles Lindsey said:
>>> Although both of these methods have seen use in the past, the
>>> preponderance of current usage on Usenet has been for method (b)
>>> and many moderators are ill-prepared to deal with method (a).
>>> Therefore, method (a) SHOULD NOT be used until such time as the
>>> majority of moderators are able to accept it.
>
>> I know that technically SHOULD NOT covers it, but I think the wording
>> should make it clearer that the reason for not using (a) is purely that
>> moderators might not be prepared. Something like:
>
>> Therefore, method (a) SHOULD NOT be used unless there is good
>> reason to believe that the moderator in question is able to accept
>> it (in the absence of information, it should be assumed that he
>> can not).
>
> But that supposes that injectors will know the preferences of "the
> moderator in question". Some injectors may be prepared to go to that
> trouble, but I doubt that most will.

True.

On the other hand, when dealing with a specific group all you need to know
is the views of *that* moderator. What the majority of moderators can
handle is irrelevant.

Automated redirection is probably going to play safe in the short term,
until there's a way to automatically distribute the information, but if
my news client just creates an email and asks me what to do next, there
would be nothing to stop me selecting "encapsulate" or "not" based on my
knowledge of the moderator (e.g. based on text in her .sig).

> This is one of those arguments which is going to be fought out in the
> market place. If we are agreed that both methods are valid (and I hear no
> contrary argument as yet), and it our hope is that encapsulation should
> wind in the long term (whenever that is), then the most we can do is to
> provide a strong initial handicap in favour of the non-encapsulators,
> which is what my wording was trying to do.
>
> First do we agree that is our aim?

I do, though I might query the word "strong".

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive@demon.net>   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive@davros.org>  | Fax:  +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            | NOTE: fax number change


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.