Still More on Moderation...

C3J5 c3j5 at aol.com
Fri Jan 19 07:41:03 EST 1996


-------------

In a message dated 96-01-08 09:47:27 EST, lyona at duke.usask.ca (Andrew
William Lyon) wrote:

>Subj:	Re: RFD: sci.med.toxicology
>To:	c3j5 at aol.com (Christopher E. Jones)

[snip]
>	Perhaps the evolution of "newgroups"  can be influenced: Can a 
>newgroups such as sci.med.toxicology and sci.med.laboratory exist, and 
>be copied automatically  to a  "more-general-interest"  newsgroup??  This

>would allow the development of narrow-focus specialty newsgroups and 
>strengthen the general-interest newsgroups, rather than creating a 
>competition for participants.  Any comments?   Andrew W. Lyon

------------

In article <4daad8$ft5 at newsbf02.news.aol.com>, c3j5 at aol.com (C3J5) writes:

>Subject:Still More on Moderation...
>From:	c3j5 at aol.com (C3J5)
>Date:	14 Jan 1996 02:12:40 -0500
>
>What options are available in the BIOSCI/bionet system to Group
Discussion
>Leaders with respect to setting Reply-To: headers on posts on specific
>subjects?  Would these be different for a moderator?  If so, how?
>
>Christopher E. Jones, PhD

--------------

In article <4diobu$3d1 at newsbf02.news.aol.com>, c3j5 at aol.com (C3J5) writes:

>'Instructions for BIOSCI/bionet ...' have been received and are being
>reviewed.  Thank you, Dr Miller.
>
>Christopher E. Jones, PhD

--------------

In an article being posted in news.groups (Re: RFD: sci.med.toxicology),
c3j5 at aol.com (C3J5) writes:

>Relevant information and input has been obtained by the Group
>Discussion Leader for bionet.toxicology and the proponent for
>sci.med.toxicology (me).  The following capabilities/possibilities
>surfaced during the investigation:

>1.  For a MODERATED newsgroup, the moderator could ensure
>(and modify)  appropriate posting and/or cross-posting.  

>Additional Comments: For example, a moderator for a specialty
>newsgroup could ensure each post was posted and/or cross-posted
>to the general-interest newsgroup (and vice-versa for appropriate
>topics).  In addition, if a digest of the specialty newsgroup were to
>be routinely posted to the general-interest newsgroup, a moderator
>for the general-interest newsgroup could redirect appropriate posts
>to the specialty newsgroup (the post would subsequently appear
>in the digest).  Unfortunately, a moderator cannot be certain whether
>and to what newsgroups a post may be cross-posted.  Neither of my
>newsgroup readers has cross-posting capabilities; I have to prepare
>separate posts by the cut-and-paste method.  IMHO, it should thus
>remain the responsibility of the author to ensure appropriate posting
>and cross-posting.  I would add that I have frequently sent e-mail
>messages to authors suggesting an appropriate group to which to
>cross-post a particular question.

>2.  For a MODERATED newsgroup, the moderator could ensure
>(and modify) appropriate Reply-To: headers.

>Additional Comments:  For example, a moderator could go ahead
>and publish a post which would more appropriately be posted in the
>other newsgroup (and ensure it's posted there per #1 above) but set
>the Reply-To: header to redirect replies to the other newsgroup.  This
>is analogous to what is done with RFD's.  In addition, if a digest of
>the specialty group is routinely posted to the general-interest group,
>it would be important for the digest's Reply-To: header to be set to
>the specialty newsgroup.
[snip]

--------------

  However, due to other considerations (see the thread RFD:
sci.med.toxicology in news.groups), whatever relationship develops between
bionet.toxicology and the proposed Usenet newsgroup on clinical and
forensic toxicology, sci.med.toxicology, should have no bearing on whether
bionet.toxicology should become moderated.  But the possibility was
recognized and investigated (just thought I'd let you know).

Christopher E. Jones, PhD
sci.med.toxicology proponent



More information about the Toxicol mailing list