Re: Proposal - Reinstate alt.usenet.reposts

Jason Evans <[email protected]> wrote:

>History:

>alt.usenet.reposts was created by a control message on 22 May 1995.

The terminology is a big deal because the word "creation" has always misled
proponents into thinking that newgrouping is all he has to do. Because
the proponent is expected to send his own control message and then follow
up publicizing the group asking would-be users to request its creation
locally, a newgroup message doesn't create a newsgroup. In the past,
we've had proponents complain here that they can't post to the group on
their own server, but that's because they failed to follow up with their
own News administrator to request creation locally.

That's just the date of newgrouping, not creation.

>It was never deleted via a control message according to the isc.org archives 
>and it is currently a part of the isc.org newsgroup list but with an 
>unfortunate description.

There are no servers known to process rmgroup messages in alt
automatically. Trusted rmgroupers were long before my time, and Jay
Denebeim who played with rmgroups after they left has been gone for a
couple of decades too.

A News administrator would treat rmgroups in alt.* like trolls, which
they are, and refuse to process them.

>However it is not carried by many new servers. 
>The current description is "Use alt.best.of.internet instead." "internet" 
>is too broad and also it has been requested multiple times to be deleted. 

>This is a request for server admins to add a.u.r as an existing newsgroup 
>to their lists if they are not already.

>One more thing, the description below has been altered to remove a line 
>referring to alt.usenet.reposts.d which has been deleted and to increase 
>the number of existing newsgroups from over 10000 to over 45000.

>----

>For your newsgroups file:
>alt.usenet.reposts      Reposts of funny, interesting, or thought 
>provoking usenet articles

What you are doing is called retrochartering. It's really not considered
to be legitimate. Why? There were a few instances in the '90s in which a
few people in specific newsgroups carried out vendettas by changing
charters back and forth to charter thump and generally declare each
other off topic.

However, there are no rules, just recommendations. So, if you're going
to do it, would you please get the syntax of the newsgroups file line correct?

group.name<tab>Brief description.

You SHOULD NOT substitute a series of spaces for the tab character.
However, INN will replace it with a tab character.

The entire line MUST NOT have a line break. The entire line SHOULD be 79
characters or less, assuming an 8-position tab. Traditionally, it ends
in a period.

(It's 79 and not 80 characters because some terminals used to stack
characters in positions 80 and later in the 80th position instead of
wrapping, and some terminals inartfully indicated the line boundary in
position 80 as well, stacking it on the 80th character. With 79
characters, it's always readable.)

A well-written brief description is a phrase made up of key words that
DO NOT repeat words in the group name. If a user is searching the
newsgroups, then he might more easily hit upon this newsgroup.

>Description: The newsgroup alt.usenet.reposts (AUR) was created to
>contain articles that people have read in other newsgroups and which other
>people might find amusing or interesting: there are over 45,000 groups out
>there, and even if you wanted to, you couldn't read every one.  Instead, 
>you can read AUR, and read about the violent end of flame wars, newbieisms 
>too clueless for words, witty responses and other articles that a wider 
>audience might find interesting. 

>Charter: Alt.Usenet.Reposts (AUR) is dedicated to giving people a
>place to repost funny, entertaining, intelligent, thought-provoking, or
>otherwise interesting articles from usenet newsgroups so that all usenet
>users can have the chance to read these articles which they might 
>otherwise miss.

Posting to alt.config is not an effective way to publicize reviving this
newsgroup. I'd just mention that you are trying to revive the newsgroup
in a .sigfile, asking people to request its creation and read it.
ANYWHERE you find a nostalgic thread, post a followup to mention what
you are trying to do.

I should also point out that all we do in alt.config is discuss
charters. And there is no "we"; I'm probably the last one who might make
a comment. Prior to the three Mozilla replacement newsgroups, it had
been at least four years since a serious proponent stopped by.

For the most part, News administrators don't read nor participate in
this newsgroup. Well, Bruce Esquibel does, but he's got just a handful
of users left on RIPCO and he's mostly here to flame me as he's hated my
guts for a long time. He'll be along shortly to do so.

Grant stopped by a few days ago to announce that he'd created another
unnewgrouped newsgroup the day it was proposed here; the proponent never
bothered to newgroup it.

Such is the state of alt.* these days.