Subject: Re: Self-Destructing Newsgroups From: tale@rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) Date: 1990-11-20, 20:24 Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.tv.twin-peaks In <62543@unix.cis.pitt.edu> tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) writes: Now we hear that USENET can not deal with a "temporary" subject. It must be permanent to be a part of USENET. I really don't see why this must be true -- it simply hasn't been addressed before. It's a new idea, that's all. It is hardly a new idea. This sort of thing was a topic of discussion before even the Great Renaming, when the size of the net paled in comparison to its current existence. It was a bad idea then and its a worse idea now that the net is so much larger and has so many sites on auto-control. You can't get rid of groups on temporary subjects and not being able to get rid of them means wasted time as people post articles that disappear into a void and kind admins trying to help them out. And let's be realistic, just how long does anyone think USENET will exist? Forever? Hardly. USENET will exist until something makes it obsolete. The more adaptable USENET is, the longer USENET will last. Regardless, I'll bet it lasts longer than Twin Peaks. The "rmgroup" is a good compromise for all concerned. Perhaps some sort of 'cleanup' rule of thumb could be applied to other groups, without making a complex algorithm out of it. The ALTnet works so well this way. Yeah, right. -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))