[ntp:questions] forwarding

Richard B. Gilbert rgilbert88 at comcast.net
Sun Mar 13 19:30:44 UTC 2005


Frederick Bruckman wrote:

>In article <mailman.24.1110736632.576.questions at lists.ntp.isc.org>,
>	Brad Knowles <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org> writes:
>  
>
>>At 10:43 AM -0600 2005-03-13, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
>>
>>	Gmane doesn't solve our problem.  The comp.protocols.time.ntp 
>>newsgroup already exists.  The entire purpose of the "questions" 
>>mailing list was to function as an e-mail gateway to this newsgroup. 
>>Eliminate the gateway to this specific newsgroup, and you eliminate 
>>the reason for this mailing list to exist.
>>    
>>
>
>It's clear to everyone but you, that by gating a mailing list with an
>apparently different name and purpose to this newsgroup, you've changed
>it profoundly.
>
>  
>
>>> You are also missing Ulrich's point entirely: comp.protocols.time.ntp
>>> existed long before ntp.questions, as a light traffic newsgroup
>>> containing interesting technical banter.
>>>      
>>>
>>	If Gmane is running a gateway for the "questions" mailing list, 
>>that is unauthorized.  If they're doing that, I'm going to do 
>>everything in my power to make sure that they stop what they're 
>>doing, and disconnect their gateway for all of our mailing lists.
>>    
>>
>
>You do that.  Gee, I wish you'd mentioned *that* when I brought it up,
>so I wouldn't have just submitted the request.
>
>  
>
>>>                                           Why was this group taken for
>>> ntp.questions, and not, say, for ntp.hackers?  Besides, the usual thing
>>> is to set up an off-usenet newsserver to serve the mailing lists.
>>>      
>>>
>>	No, it's not.  If you'd been using USENET for about twenty years, 
>>and administering USENET for five, then you'd know that.
>>    
>>
>
>Now I understand!  You're a curmudgeon, who's out of touch with the way
>things are done today. You see, another stupid thing your software does,
>besides breaking threading, is it emails copies of every posting to the
>person being responded to.  While this is acceptable on mailing lists,
>it's really not done on Usenet these days.
>
>  
>
>>>                                                To simply "take over" an
>>> existing Usenet newsgroup is unprecedented.
>>>      
>>>
>>	Unprecedented?  Excuse me?  Just exactly how familiar are you 
>>with the concept of mail-to-news gateways?  This kind of 
>>bi-directional gateway has been going on for about as long as USENET 
>>news and e-mail have both been in existence.  People have been 
>>setting up new bi-directional gateways as they set up new news 
>>servers or new mailing list servers, about as long as those 
>>technologies have been in existence.
>>    
>>
>
>I misunderstood. I thought it was a completely different list, based on
>the fact that it has a completely different name. The "[ntp.questions]"
>in the subject also seems to indicate that the messages are unrelated
>to the main topic of the group.  Pretty much all the comp groups have
>mail-to-news gateways, but it seems only this one has to put up with
>the broken threading and the change in charter. 
>
>It's clear to me that you have a lot invested in this emotionally, and
>that your mind's made up, so there's really no point in talking about
>it anymore. Bye.
>
>
>Frederick
>  
>
There's really no point in talking about it in comp.protocols.time.ntp 
as it is off topic for this newsgroup.  If you must continue to debate 
the issue, please do so off line.



More information about the questions mailing list