CALL FOR DISCUSSION: MOLLUSCS/bionet.molbio.molluscs

Una Smith una at
Wed Jul 20 15:56:51 EST 1994

BIOSCI Administrator <biosci-help at NET.BIO.NET> wrote:

>We have received a proposal below for a new newsgroup,
>Please note that this name was requested instead of
>bionet.organisms.molluscs because of a desire to limit the discussion
>to mollusc DNA research and not confuse the group with another more
>general mollusc LISTSERV. ...

I have no problem with the first part of this:  I suggested
bionet.organisms.* for those groups that didn't really fit in
bionet.molbio.* but weren't general enough to go directly under

The second part makes not sense:  MOLBIO instead of ORGANISMS will
not help to reduce confusion between two mailing list addresses,
one MOLLUSCA (at Berkeley) and the other MOLLUSCS (proposed here).
Better to pick a more distinct name!

Dr. Elizabeth Grace Boulding (apparently) wrote:

>Proposed mailing list name:  MOLLUSC-MOLECULAR-NEWS
>Proposed e-mail addresses:  molluscs at
>                            molluscs at

David Kristofferson is the only administrator I know who uses
long-form names.  And as a rule the participants in a mailing
list/newsgroup use either the newsgroup name or the mailing
list name.  That is, the "username" part of the mailing list
address.  Thus, this name will still be confused with MOLLUSCA,
which resides on

How about simply MOLMLSC, or some other variant that can be
said out loud (it should be easy to say and remember), and 
skip the longer "MOLLUSC-MOLECULAR-NEWS" bit?

>Discussion leader:  Dr. Elizabeth Grace Boulding
>                    Dept. of Zoology
>                    University of Guelph
>                    Guelph, ON
>                    N1G 2W1
>                    Canada
>                    telephone: (519) 824-4120 (x4961)
>                    FAX: (519) 767-1656
>                    email: boulding at

It certainly would be simpler to communicate with the proposers if
they were able to post their proposals themselves (as is done in
news.groups), or at least if the Reply-To header were set to the

>Proposal for moving the newsgroup Mollusc Molecular News to bionet:
>The Mollusc Molecular News is a newsgroup with approximately 200
>members whose research involves working with mollusc DNA. ...

This is a MAILING LIST, right?  It sounds like a shoe-in, given
the current readership.

>We would like status as a full-fledged
>newsgroup from the beginning so our postings can be archived and
>available through USENET.

The archiving of traffic doesn't depend on being a Usenet newsgroup.
Why doesn't this mailng list have an archive already?  How much
traffic does it get?  A Usenet newsgroup will go to tens of thousands
of sites;  is there real potential for tens of thousands of readers?
Perhaps this mailing list should stay a mailing list.  I note that has the ListProcessor package running, and hosts several
biology mailing lists already.

	Una Smith			smith-una at

Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT  06520-8104  USA

More information about the Bioforum mailing list