In article <CMM.0.90.2.711920690.kristoff at genbank.bio.net> kristoff at GENBANK.BIO.NET (Dave Kristofferson) writes:
>>> Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that one can currently
>limit the distribution of messages simply by using the "distribution"
>feature in news software. For example I have the following options
>here:
> The problem is that (I think) it is generally believed that distributions
are not really very efficient. On news.admin, you often hear this complaint.
There are many leaks. We even had some articles for University of Colorado
appearing in cu.general here at Columbia.
I think the real problem is that limiting the distribution is a waste
of time unless you are _certain_ that your question has a local answer. On
those few occasions when I've posted here with questions, the best answers
have come from non-local areas. The only time I limit my distribution is
if the question is very trivial, or of local interest.
>>Another possibility that we could entertain would be to split up
>METHODS into a few subsets if anyone thinks that the time has come for
>this.
> A much better idea. I predict that bionet readership will be going way
up in the next few years. Biologists are underrepresented as users, especially
considering what computers and network communication can do for a biologist.
More and more of the students and faculty here are getting interested in
databases, and e-mail communication, and bionet. I predict that bionet
volume will grow faster than usenet(anybody got any stats?)
Isn't bionet.genbank.updates (or something like that) one of the highest
volume groups?
DanZ
--
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
