Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

UUCP providers list (?)

71 views
Skip to first unread message

Andrzej Adam Filip

unread,
Nov 13, 2006, 5:43:33 AM11/13/06
to
1) Is it available somewhere in a *maintained* version?

2) Should we encourage providers to post *short* announcements here
(with web link to full version) twice a year?
[or another frequency, just to be cached by search engines]

I would prefer "1" but "2" requires no maintainer.
Better this that a "looking dead" newsgroup.

--
[pl2en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : an...@priv.onet.pl : an...@xl.wp.pl

Victor Sudakov

unread,
Nov 13, 2006, 10:22:26 PM11/13/06
to
Andrzej,

What do you mean by "UUCP providers"? Those who support bang paths,
UUCP routing maps etc? We don't.

What about those who use UUCP as transport for regular domain-based
E-mail, do they also qualify?

--
Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/

Andrzej Adam Filip

unread,
Nov 14, 2006, 3:00:43 AM11/14/06
to
Victor Sudakov <v...@mpeks.no-spam-here.tomsk.su> writes:

> Andrzej,
>
> What do you mean by "UUCP providers"? Those who support bang paths,
> UUCP routing maps etc? We don't.
>
> What about those who use UUCP as transport for regular domain-based
> E-mail, do they also qualify?

0) I have meant "uucp transport providers" *too*.

1) It is merely a one person idea.
Feel free to recommend "fine tuning" it at will :-)

Victor Sudakov

unread,
Nov 17, 2006, 12:26:33 AM11/17/06
to
Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
> >
> > What do you mean by "UUCP providers"? Those who support bang paths,
> > UUCP routing maps etc? We don't.
> >
> > What about those who use UUCP as transport for regular domain-based
> > E-mail, do they also qualify?

> 0) I have meant "uucp transport providers" *too*.

> 1) It is merely a one person idea.
> Feel free to recommend "fine tuning" it at will :-)

I doubt the usefullnes of this idea. If only to create some traffic in
the newsgroup.

Hugo Villeneuve

unread,
Mar 15, 2007, 8:17:25 PM3/15/07
to
Andrzej Adam Filip <an...@onet.eu> wrote:

> 1) Is it available somewhere in a *maintained* version?

You mean is this post updated anymore or something similar?

http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.mail.uucp/msg/8c255c314421b663

Not that I know.

>
> 2) Should we encourage providers to post *short* announcements here
> (with web link to full version) twice a year?
> [or another frequency, just to be cached by search engines]

That would look too much like spam for me. Would rather like a third
party writting in a neutral way.

>
> I would prefer "1" but "2" requires no maintainer.
> Better this that a "looking dead" newsgroup.

This newsgroup isn't dead yet.

Although I'm making a effort to answer because the new Big-8 management
is in a rampage of group removal. They're happy to go about vacant
moderated newsgroup and zero on-topic newsgroup for now but I don't want
them to ever reach comp.mail.uucp. :)

[If you beleive Jim Riley, 50 non-crossposted articles and less in a
year is a dead newsgroup. <12vhlf7...@corp.supernews.com> ]

--
Hugo Villeneuve <hu...@EINTR.net>

0 new messages