• comp.mail.esmtp or comp.mail.mta ?

    From Grant Taylor@21:1/5 to Andrzej Adam Filip on Thu Jan 7 11:06:08 2021
    XPost: comp.mail.sendmail

    Followup-To: comp.mail.misc.

    On 1/6/21 1:37 PM, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
    Is there a need for news:comp.mail.esmtp or news:comp.mail.mta ?

    I don't know.

    They aren't in my active file, so I can't check their history. Which is
    in and of itself strange as I thought my active file was based on the
    ISC default.

    Translated: Is comp usenet hierarchy dying/dead?

    I don't know if the comp.hierarchy is dying any faster or slower than
    other hierarchies.

    I know that I post to and interact with multiple newsgroups in the comp hierarchy monthly.

    I also question is there any value in removing (part of) the comp
    hierarchy? Seeing as how leaving it in the active file seems to take
    very few resources.

    Starting formal procedure would be waste of time with no interest.

    Starting a formal procedure to do what?



    --
    Grant. . . .
    unix || die

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eli the Bearded@21:1/5 to gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net on Thu Jan 7 22:27:34 2021
    In comp.mail.misc, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
    On 1/6/21 1:37 PM, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
    Is there a need for news:comp.mail.esmtp or news:comp.mail.mta ?

    Doubtful. comp.mail.misc can cover anything not covered by other
    comp.mail.* groups, and comp.mail.misc gets virtually no traffic.

    They aren't in my active file, so I can't check their history. Which is
    in and of itself strange as I thought my active file was based on the
    ISC default.

    I think Andrzej was not asking if the groups should be removed, but if
    they should be added. (Or maybe he was asking if they should be removed,
    but in that case: yes. Those are not official Big-8 newsgroups.)

    I also question is there any value in removing (part of) the comp
    hierarchy? Seeing as how leaving it in the active file seems to take
    very few resources.

    It will be mean fewer places for "The Doctor" to post his Xananews
    statistics posts, and fewer places for the odd other spammer to show up.

    Starting formal procedure would be waste of time with no interest.
    Starting a formal procedure to do what?

    I think he meant formal procedure to add those groups. I think that
    indeed would be a waste of time. As for a formal procedure to remove the groups, that shouldn't be necessary. Just apply a checkgroups message.
    The big-8.org wiki points to this FTP site:

    ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/Group_Lists

    for the official list of groups.

    Elijah
    ------
    if correct, that shows there have been no changes for six years

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrzej Adam Filip@21:1/5 to Eli the Bearded on Fri Jan 8 08:48:21 2021
    XPost: comp.mail.sendmail

    Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
    In comp.mail.misc, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
    On 1/6/21 1:37 PM, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
    Is there a need for news:comp.mail.esmtp or news:comp.mail.mta ?

    Doubtful. comp.mail.misc can cover anything not covered by other
    comp.mail.* groups, and comp.mail.misc gets virtually no traffic.

    They aren't in my active file, so I can't check their history. Which is
    in and of itself strange as I thought my active file was based on the
    ISC default.

    I think Andrzej was not asking if the groups should be removed, but if
    they should be added. (Or maybe he was asking if they should be removed,
    but in that case: yes. Those are not official Big-8 newsgroups.)

    I also question is there any value in removing (part of) the comp
    hierarchy? Seeing as how leaving it in the active file seems to take
    very few resources.

    It will be mean fewer places for "The Doctor" to post his Xananews
    statistics posts, and fewer places for the odd other spammer to show up.

    Starting formal procedure would be waste of time with no interest.
    Starting a formal procedure to do what?

    I think he meant formal procedure to add those groups. I think that
    indeed would be a waste of time. As for a formal procedure to remove the groups, that shouldn't be necessary. Just apply a checkgroups message.
    The big-8.org wiki points to this FTP site:

    ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/Group_Lists

    for the official list of groups.

    I think that short term "recommendation" may be to
    post some replies to news:comp.mail.misc *too*.

    news:comp.mail.sendmail is "more alive" and because of it receives also
    "much more than sendmail" question.

    --
    [Andrew] Andrzej A. Filip

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)