Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
FAST-TRACK of remove uk.tech.rocketry
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Tony Evans as Control
Dec 21, 2014, 10:43:06 AM12/21/14
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
FAST TRACK ANNOUNCEMENT remove uk.tech.rocketry
=======================
In the procedures established for maintaining the uk.* hierarchy
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html> there are provisions, where
there is a consensus and the proposal is straightforward and
non-controversial, to proceed by the "fast-track" method, so as to avoid
the necessity for holding a full vote.
I have now received a request to fast-track the following proposal:
delete newsgroup uk.tech.rocketry
This proposal will be activated no earlier than five days from the posting
of this notice (i.e. not before December 27th), unless there are
objections (of which six or more, or any one which seems to the Committee
to be well founded, shall suffice to halt the process).
Objections should be emailed directly to Control at
<con...@usenet.org.uk>.
Objections will be resolved by the committee (comm...@usenet.org.uk)
============================================================================
Newsgroup line:
uk.tech.rocketry All aspects of rocketry in the UK, excluding fireworks
RATIONALE: uk.tech.rocketry
It has long been custom within uk.* to check for groups that are not
being used and then to remove them. By doing this we keep the number of
dead groups down increasing the chances that someone stumbling across a
group will find it useful.
An analysis of the posts to uk.tech.rocketry from 2013-11-29 to
2014-11-29 has shown that there were no posts in this period.
It is not the intention to remove any groups that are, or people
believe will be, useful going forward. If you are a user of the group
and feel it should remain then please reply to this and join the debate
on uk.net.news.config so I know not to press ahead with this.
CHARTER:
uk.tech.rocketry
uk.tech.rocketry is a forum for model, amateur and professional
rocketeers to discuss rocketry within the UK.
Examples of suitable topics for uk.tech.rocketry include:
Rockets:
All classifications, model, HPR, amateur, and professional.
Recovery systems. Materials, use and make up. Stability and
aerodynamics. Sport and competition flying.
Launching:
Sites, their suitability, location and use. Equipment, design and
use. Electronics. Dates, times and all aspects of events. Notams,
their issue and use. Launch reports from individuals, groups or
events.
Rocketry Software:
Design and simulation software. Centre of Pressure/gravity
calculators. Educational programs. Electronic download software and
hardware. All rocketry related computer products, their
availability and use.
Discussions on rocket history, the future of rocketry (All
classifications)
Tips & Techniques for rocketeers.
Literature covering the topics listed above.
Advertising
Is forbidden except for short (less than 10 lines) private adverts for
rocketry related items (launch equipment, rockets, software, books etc.)
and announcements of events relevant to rocketry in the UK.
Suppliers of relevant goods and services may post a pointer to their
website or an invitation to request details. This may not exceed four
lines and can only be posted no more often than once a month. The subject
line should include "ADVERT: ". Blatant off-topic advertising is not
permitted.
Binaries & Formatting
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files etc), are forbidden,
except for cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP). Binaries belong on a web
or ftp site, whose URL may be posted.
You are invited to read a guide on the World Wide Web
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html> for further information on how to
configure your newsreader to post to uk.* newsgroups.
Anyone posting advertisements, binaries or other material contrary to
this charter may be reported to their ISP or postmaster.
END CHARTER
Proponent:
Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
- --
Tony Evans | Email: con...@usenet.org.uk
Control | Web: http://www.usenet.org.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.12
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBVJbqg2OfGXkh8vHZAQFuPwP/cFvP3jftgWF/x4Hag3Ev8WJDqI+GyE2b
M9aD/M8pfx6Rl5jBMgOtDhdmnyEK1l+TIzK5gORXcZPT7TJHy0JnjIQA4MaswLew
d61msnoR3WFwfmFJshS4Nvhg87oNjPcrHRlvoFjNNurhLNOgaOjntBW67JXrXQO6
1MVYATJoLMg=
=7MS/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
FAST TRACK ANNOUNCEMENT remove uk.tech.rocketry
=======================
In the procedures established for maintaining the uk.* hierarchy
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html> there are provisions, where
there is a consensus and the proposal is straightforward and
non-controversial, to proceed by the "fast-track" method, so as to avoid
the necessity for holding a full vote.
I have now received a request to fast-track the following proposal:
delete newsgroup uk.tech.rocketry
This proposal will be activated no earlier than five days from the posting
of this notice (i.e. not before December 27th), unless there are
objections (of which six or more, or any one which seems to the Committee
to be well founded, shall suffice to halt the process).
Objections should be emailed directly to Control at
<con...@usenet.org.uk>.
Objections will be resolved by the committee (comm...@usenet.org.uk)
============================================================================
Newsgroup line:
uk.tech.rocketry All aspects of rocketry in the UK, excluding fireworks
RATIONALE: uk.tech.rocketry
It has long been custom within uk.* to check for groups that are not
being used and then to remove them. By doing this we keep the number of
dead groups down increasing the chances that someone stumbling across a
group will find it useful.
An analysis of the posts to uk.tech.rocketry from 2013-11-29 to
2014-11-29 has shown that there were no posts in this period.
It is not the intention to remove any groups that are, or people
believe will be, useful going forward. If you are a user of the group
and feel it should remain then please reply to this and join the debate
on uk.net.news.config so I know not to press ahead with this.
CHARTER:
uk.tech.rocketry
uk.tech.rocketry is a forum for model, amateur and professional
rocketeers to discuss rocketry within the UK.
Examples of suitable topics for uk.tech.rocketry include:
Rockets:
All classifications, model, HPR, amateur, and professional.
Recovery systems. Materials, use and make up. Stability and
aerodynamics. Sport and competition flying.
Launching:
Sites, their suitability, location and use. Equipment, design and
use. Electronics. Dates, times and all aspects of events. Notams,
their issue and use. Launch reports from individuals, groups or
events.
Rocketry Software:
Design and simulation software. Centre of Pressure/gravity
calculators. Educational programs. Electronic download software and
hardware. All rocketry related computer products, their
availability and use.
Discussions on rocket history, the future of rocketry (All
classifications)
Tips & Techniques for rocketeers.
Literature covering the topics listed above.
Advertising
Is forbidden except for short (less than 10 lines) private adverts for
rocketry related items (launch equipment, rockets, software, books etc.)
and announcements of events relevant to rocketry in the UK.
Suppliers of relevant goods and services may post a pointer to their
website or an invitation to request details. This may not exceed four
lines and can only be posted no more often than once a month. The subject
line should include "ADVERT: ". Blatant off-topic advertising is not
permitted.
Binaries & Formatting
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files etc), are forbidden,
except for cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP). Binaries belong on a web
or ftp site, whose URL may be posted.
You are invited to read a guide on the World Wide Web
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html> for further information on how to
configure your newsreader to post to uk.* newsgroups.
Anyone posting advertisements, binaries or other material contrary to
this charter may be reported to their ISP or postmaster.
END CHARTER
Proponent:
Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
- --
Tony Evans | Email: con...@usenet.org.uk
Control | Web: http://www.usenet.org.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.12
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBVJbqg2OfGXkh8vHZAQFuPwP/cFvP3jftgWF/x4Hag3Ev8WJDqI+GyE2b
M9aD/M8pfx6Rl5jBMgOtDhdmnyEK1l+TIzK5gORXcZPT7TJHy0JnjIQA4MaswLew
d61msnoR3WFwfmFJshS4Nvhg87oNjPcrHRlvoFjNNurhLNOgaOjntBW67JXrXQO6
1MVYATJoLMg=
=7MS/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Peter Fairbrother
Dec 30, 2014, 9:45:53 AM12/30/14
to
Seems to me that leaving newsgroups in place doesn't cost anything - and
removing them is a bit like Beeching closing the minor stations on the
railways, an act of wanton vandalism from which the rail system has
never recovered - passengers to and from main line stations have to get
to the main line stations somehow.
I guess you people have gone through this, and have some reasons for
wanting to close NGs - I wonder what they are? And what the cost-benefit
analysis might be?
-- Peter Fairbrother
Charles Lindsey
Jan 1, 2015, 12:12:15 PM1/1/15
to
In <m7udq8$7p2$1...@dont-email.me> Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> writes:
>Seems to me that leaving newsgroups in place doesn't cost anything - and
>removing them is a bit like Beeching closing the minor stations on the
>railways, an act of wanton vandalism from which the rail system has
>never recovered - passengers to and from main line stations have to get
>to the main line stations somehow.
>I guess you people have gone through this, and have some reasons for
>wanting to close NGs - I wonder what they are? And what the cost-benefit
>analysis might be?
If there are too many groups, and only a finite and limited amount of
>Seems to me that leaving newsgroups in place doesn't cost anything - and
>removing them is a bit like Beeching closing the minor stations on the
>railways, an act of wanton vandalism from which the rail system has
>never recovered - passengers to and from main line stations have to get
>to the main line stations somehow.
>I guess you people have gone through this, and have some reasons for
>wanting to close NGs - I wonder what they are? And what the cost-benefit
>analysis might be?
discussion, then it is better to concentrate it in a smaller number of
viable groups, rather to have it fragmented.
So in each case, it is better to see if there is a single group where a
topic could be discussed, and to remove unused subtopics of that group.
For example, if a football for a specific club is underused, it is better
to discuss it in a generic football group. But if it were proposed to
remove the generic football group, then that might well be regarded as a
step too far, even if it were little used.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Wm...
Jan 1, 2015, 3:58:47 PM1/1/15
to
Thu, 1 Jan 2015 14:08:34 <nHI4M...@clerew.man.ac.uk>
uk.net.news.config Charles Lindsey <c...@clerew.man.ac.uk>
>If there are too many groups, and only a finite and limited amount of
>discussion, then it is better to concentrate it in a smaller number of
>viable groups, rather to have it fragmented.
theoretically, yes, problem is some of the people squished together by
the contraction don't seem to get on with each other
groups of people that should have a protected area are well understood
in uk.* and have been listed recently, you know that
>So in each case, it is better to see if there is a single group where a
>topic could be discussed, and to remove unused subtopics of that group.
my break
>For example, if a football for a specific club is underused, it is better
>to discuss it in a generic football group.
Ummm, no, I've been in the UK long enough to know I don't understand
soccer but do understand putting them all into one ng probably won't
have any specific desired effect
it would be an interesting experiment in usenet terms but I wouldn't try
it in real life unless there were only a handful of soccer fans left
using usenet
> But if it were proposed to
>remove the generic football group, then that might well be regarded as a
>step too far, even if it were little used.
I'm not so sure.
how about, for comparison, we remove amateur radio and soccer from uk.*
all of it
do you really care ?
I don't
--
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Charles Lindsey <c...@clerew.man.ac.uk>
>If there are too many groups, and only a finite and limited amount of
>discussion, then it is better to concentrate it in a smaller number of
>viable groups, rather to have it fragmented.
the contraction don't seem to get on with each other
groups of people that should have a protected area are well understood
in uk.* and have been listed recently, you know that
>So in each case, it is better to see if there is a single group where a
>topic could be discussed, and to remove unused subtopics of that group.
>For example, if a football for a specific club is underused, it is better
>to discuss it in a generic football group.
soccer but do understand putting them all into one ng probably won't
have any specific desired effect
it would be an interesting experiment in usenet terms but I wouldn't try
it in real life unless there were only a handful of soccer fans left
using usenet
> But if it were proposed to
>remove the generic football group, then that might well be regarded as a
>step too far, even if it were little used.
how about, for comparison, we remove amateur radio and soccer from uk.*
all of it
do you really care ?
I don't
--
Wm...
Message has been deleted
Peter Fairbrother
Jan 1, 2015, 5:10:34 PM1/1/15
to
On 01/01/15 14:08, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <m7udq8$7p2$1...@dont-email.me> Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Seems to me that leaving newsgroups in place doesn't cost anything - and
>> removing them is a bit like Beeching closing the minor stations on the
>> railways, an act of wanton vandalism from which the rail system has
>> never recovered - passengers to and from main line stations have to get
>> to the main line stations somehow.
>
>> I guess you people have gone through this, and have some reasons for
>> wanting to close NGs - I wonder what they are? And what the cost-benefit
>> analysis might be?
>
> If there are too many groups, and only a finite and limited amount of
> discussion, then it is better to concentrate it in a smaller number of
> viable groups, rather to have it fragmented.
>
> So in each case, it is better to see if there is a single group where a
> topic could be discussed, and to remove unused subtopics of that group.
> For example, if a football for a specific club is underused, it is better
> to discuss it in a generic football group. But if it were proposed to
> remove the generic football group, then that might well be regarded as a
> step too far, even if it were little used.
>
Hi Charles, didn't know you posted here.
> In <m7udq8$7p2$1...@dont-email.me> Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Seems to me that leaving newsgroups in place doesn't cost anything - and
>> removing them is a bit like Beeching closing the minor stations on the
>> railways, an act of wanton vandalism from which the rail system has
>> never recovered - passengers to and from main line stations have to get
>> to the main line stations somehow.
>
>> I guess you people have gone through this, and have some reasons for
>> wanting to close NGs - I wonder what they are? And what the cost-benefit
>> analysis might be?
>
> If there are too many groups, and only a finite and limited amount of
> discussion, then it is better to concentrate it in a smaller number of
> viable groups, rather to have it fragmented.
>
> So in each case, it is better to see if there is a single group where a
> topic could be discussed, and to remove unused subtopics of that group.
> For example, if a football for a specific club is underused, it is better
> to discuss it in a generic football group. But if it were proposed to
> remove the generic football group, then that might well be regarded as a
> step too far, even if it were little used.
>
Perhaps not the best example, but I see what you mean. However I don't
see that that has any relevance to a ng like uk.tech.rocketry which has
no traffic at all at present.
(I don't actually necessarily agree with you about fragmentation;
someone might only want to read a few post per year on a very particular
topic and have no interest in the wider topic, or want to put up with
the blether, trolling and lunacy which fills some ng's - hint, why
doesn't Henry Spencer post in the sci,space ng's any more - but again, I
don't think that is immediately relevant)
Model/amateur/highpower rocketry in the UK is very quiet these days, not
just on usenet, and has been for a year or two. The reasons for this are
many, including changes to the law, loss of two of the major launch
sites, and others - the hobby has declined a lot.
It will probably come back someday, these things go in cycles - but if
the ng is deleted I can virtually guarantee that it won't come back to
usenet.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Tony
Jan 1, 2015, 6:16:02 PM1/1/15
to
In uk.net.news.config, Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
>It will probably come back someday, these things go in cycles - but if
>the ng is deleted I can virtually guarantee that it won't come back to
>usenet.
I'm afraid the only reason the group is still present is because I have not
>It will probably come back someday, these things go in cycles - but if
>the ng is deleted I can virtually guarantee that it won't come back to
>usenet.
sent the control messages yet (festive break, etc.)
The period for formal objections to the deletion Fast Track request ended
on the 27th December.
"This proposal will be activated no earlier than five days from the posting
of this notice (i.e. not before December 27th), unless there are
objections (of which six or more, or any one which seems to the Committee
to be well founded, shall suffice to halt the process)."
in the next day or two.
--
Tony Evans
Seeking archives of uk.net.news.* from 2004 and earlier.
'A learning experience is one of those things that say, "You
know that thing you just did? Don't do that."' Douglas Adams.
Peter Fairbrother
Jan 1, 2015, 7:11:28 PM1/1/15
to
On 01/01/15 23:16, Tony wrote:
> In uk.net.news.config, Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It will probably come back someday, these things go in cycles - but if
>> the ng is deleted I can virtually guarantee that it won't come back to
>> usenet.
>
> I'm afraid the only reason the group is still present is because I have not
> sent the control messages yet (festive break, etc.)
>
> The period for formal objections to the deletion Fast Track request ended
> on the 27th December.
>
> "This proposal will be activated no earlier than five days from the posting
> of this notice (i.e. not before December 27th), unless there are
> objections (of which six or more, or any one which seems to the Committee
> to be well founded, shall suffice to halt the process)."
Err, that does not say that the "period for formal objections to the
> In uk.net.news.config, Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It will probably come back someday, these things go in cycles - but if
>> the ng is deleted I can virtually guarantee that it won't come back to
>> usenet.
>
> I'm afraid the only reason the group is still present is because I have not
> sent the control messages yet (festive break, etc.)
>
> The period for formal objections to the deletion Fast Track request ended
> on the 27th December.
>
> "This proposal will be activated no earlier than five days from the posting
> of this notice (i.e. not before December 27th), unless there are
> objections (of which six or more, or any one which seems to the Committee
> to be well founded, shall suffice to halt the process)."
deletion Fast Track request [will end] on the 27th December". In fact it
doesn't say anything at all about a period for formal objections.
Plus, five days over Christmas? What kind of notice is that?
Plus, are you so hide-bound by rules and procedures that you can't make
an exception?
>
> So I'm afraid it, and the batch of groups proposed with it, will be removed
> in the next day or two.
>
activated, so I require you to present my objection to the committee for
consideration.
-- Peter Fairbrother
Tony
Jan 1, 2015, 7:24:19 PM1/1/15
to
In uk.net.news.config, Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
>On 01/01/15 23:16, Tony wrote:
>> In uk.net.news.config, Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> It will probably come back someday, these things go in cycles - but if
>>> the ng is deleted I can virtually guarantee that it won't come back to
>>> usenet.
>>
>> I'm afraid the only reason the group is still present is because I have not
>> sent the control messages yet (festive break, etc.)
>>
>> The period for formal objections to the deletion Fast Track request ended
>> on the 27th December.
>>
>> "This proposal will be activated no earlier than five days from the posting
>> of this notice (i.e. not before December 27th), unless there are
>> objections (of which six or more, or any one which seems to the Committee
>> to be well founded, shall suffice to halt the process)."
>
>Err, that does not say that the "period for formal objections to the
>deletion Fast Track request [will end] on the 27th December". In fact it
>doesn't say anything at all about a period for formal objections.
>
>Plus, five days over Christmas? What kind of notice is that?
The Fast Track request was posted more than 10 days after the initial
>On 01/01/15 23:16, Tony wrote:
>> In uk.net.news.config, Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> It will probably come back someday, these things go in cycles - but if
>>> the ng is deleted I can virtually guarantee that it won't come back to
>>> usenet.
>>
>> I'm afraid the only reason the group is still present is because I have not
>> sent the control messages yet (festive break, etc.)
>>
>> The period for formal objections to the deletion Fast Track request ended
>> on the 27th December.
>>
>> "This proposal will be activated no earlier than five days from the posting
>> of this notice (i.e. not before December 27th), unless there are
>> objections (of which six or more, or any one which seems to the Committee
>> to be well founded, shall suffice to halt the process)."
>
>Err, that does not say that the "period for formal objections to the
>deletion Fast Track request [will end] on the 27th December". In fact it
>doesn't say anything at all about a period for formal objections.
>
>Plus, five days over Christmas? What kind of notice is that?
request for discussion had been posted.
This is the detail for the initial RFD posting (1st December),
From: Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.tech.rocketry
Subject: RFD: remove uk.tech.rocketry
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:27:51 +0000
Message-ID:
<rfd1-uk.tech.rocketry-20141201122751$0f...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
The Fast Track posting subsequent to that is,
From: Tony Evans as Control <con...@usenet.org.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.tech.rocketry
Subject: FAST-TRACK of remove uk.tech.rocketry
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 15:42:58 +0000
Message-ID:
<issueft-uk.tech.rocketry-20141221154258$27...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
The Fast Track notice also makes it clear how to raise formal objections,
>Plus, are you so hide-bound by rules and procedures that you can't make
>an exception?
It's not my place to make exceptions.
>an exception?
Deanna Earley
Jan 2, 2015, 3:41:58 AM1/2/15
to
On 30/12/2014 14:45, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>
> Seems to me that leaving newsgroups in place doesn't cost anything - and
> removing them is a bit like Beeching closing the minor stations on the
> railways, an act of wanton vandalism from which the rail system has
> never recovered - passengers to and from main line stations have to get
> to the main line stations somehow.
But if the station hadn't been used by *anyone* in years?
>
> Seems to me that leaving newsgroups in place doesn't cost anything - and
> removing them is a bit like Beeching closing the minor stations on the
> railways, an act of wanton vandalism from which the rail system has
> never recovered - passengers to and from main line stations have to get
> to the main line stations somehow.
--
Deanna Earley (d...@earlsoft.co.uk, d...@doesnotcompute.co.uk)
(Replies direct to my email address will be printed, shredded then fed
to the rats. Please reply to the group.)
Mark Goodge
Jan 2, 2015, 3:54:33 AM1/2/15
to
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:11:27 +0000, Peter Fairbrother put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>
>Pah. For whatever good it does, I object. The proposal has not been
>activated, so I require you to present my objection to the committee for
>consideration.
If you want to formally object, you need to email your objection to Control
as stipulated in the announcement.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on smartphones: http://goodge.eu/an
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
keyboard and typed:
>
>Pah. For whatever good it does, I object. The proposal has not been
>activated, so I require you to present my objection to the committee for
>consideration.
as stipulated in the announcement.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on smartphones: http://goodge.eu/an
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
Peter Fairbrother
Jan 2, 2015, 6:32:13 AM1/2/15
to
On 02/01/15 08:40, Deanna Earley wrote:
> On 30/12/2014 14:45, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>>
>> Seems to me that leaving newsgroups in place doesn't cost anything - and
>> removing them is a bit like Beeching closing the minor stations on the
>> railways, an act of wanton vandalism from which the rail system has
>> never recovered - passengers to and from main line stations have to get
>> to the main line stations somehow.
>
> But if the station hadn't been used by *anyone* in years?
>
Then closing it would make sense, it isn't economic - it costs to keep
> On 30/12/2014 14:45, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>>
>> Seems to me that leaving newsgroups in place doesn't cost anything - and
>> removing them is a bit like Beeching closing the minor stations on the
>> railways, an act of wanton vandalism from which the rail system has
>> never recovered - passengers to and from main line stations have to get
>> to the main line stations somehow.
>
> But if the station hadn't been used by *anyone* in years?
>
it open. Wjhether the land should be sold if problematic - will traffic
return some day? If so, or even if there is such a possibility, the land
should be retained, as getting rights opf way etc is very expensive,
while retaining them is fairly cheap.
But does it cost anything to keep a ng open? AFAICT, it doesn't. So why
close it?
Usenet as-is is dying, the idea that a ng should have at least x users
and y posts per day doesn't work. Time for a new system?
-- Peter Fairbrother
Deanna Earley
Jan 2, 2015, 7:16:40 AM1/2/15
to
Rob Morley
Jan 2, 2015, 1:06:47 PM1/2/15
to
On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:10:34 +0000
Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Charles, didn't know you posted here.
>
"Here" is uk.net.news.config - if you're interested in the way uk.* is
Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Charles, didn't know you posted here.
>
managed you should probably subscribe to the uk.net.news.* groups and
read http://www.usenet.org.uk/
0 new messages