Over the past week, the following changes have been made to the list of >Usenet newsgroups maintained at <ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/>.
This list is maintained via automatic processing of control messages as >explained by the files in that directory. For more information, see the
end of this message. . . .
I didn't know this report was posted regularly.
Even in free.* and alt.*, newgroup messages are sent rarely and they
almost never include the For your newsgroups file line. There is no
reason to exclude them unless they exceed some threshold you could set.
I seriously question why automatically generated lists should ever be crossposted out of news.admin.lists. Other newsgroups should be used
for discussion, not the lists themselves.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
I didn't know this report was posted regularly.
Given that it's been posted if warranted every week since, I believe, 2004 >(at least that's when I wrote the original posting template), that's
mildly amusing, although understandable given that the traffic of group >changes has dropped off a lot.
Even in free.* and alt.*, newgroup messages are sent rarely and they
almost never include the For your newsgroups file line. There is no
reason to exclude them unless they exceed some threshold you could set.
Nonetheless, I'm the one generating the report, and I don't want to
include them. Including unmanaged hierarchies is an open invitation to >someone playing silly games with the automated report, and I don't want to >have to deal with it. As mentioned in the report, anyone else is free to >generate their own report from the source data if they want.
I seriously question why automatically generated lists should ever be >>crossposted out of news.admin.lists. Other newsgroups should be used
for discussion, not the lists themselves.
The report is posted only to news.admin.lists. Followups are set to >news.admin.hierarchies because news.admin.lists is not a discussion group.
So the whole thing appears to work exactly the way that you want it to
work, and I'm not sure why you're upset.
I haven't seen one of these in months. I'd always assumed that a change
from a hierarchy administrator triggered generation of the report and
that it's not posted in weeks without change.
I haven't seen one of these in months. I'd always assumed that a change
from a hierarchy administrator triggered generation of the report and
that it's not posted in weeks without change.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 89:44:58 |
Calls: | 6,496 |
Calls today: | 7 |
Files: | 12,100 |
Messages: | 5,277,556 |