Message-ID: <8ISG$IAPP2HzEwL+@jenkinsdavid.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 00:39:43 +0000
To: Mark T Logan <fwec AT juno DOT com>
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From: David Jenkins <me AT jenkinsdavid DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
Subject: Re: c.o.m.djgpp retro-moderated?
In-Reply-To: <19970306.161726.7535.1.fwec@juno.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0

In message <19970306 DOT 161726 DOT 7535 DOT 1 DOT fwec AT juno DOT com>, Mark T Logan
<fwec AT juno DOT com> writes
>On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 02:07:26 +0000 David Jenkins
><me AT jenkinsdavid DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> writes:
>
>>I don't know if the following is a stupid idea or not, but.......
>>How about splitting the group???
>>
>>c.o.m.djgpp 
>>Could be left to all you experts to discuss the high level stuff.
>>
>>and
>>
>>c.o.m.djgpp.newbies
>>Could be used by us newbies.For posting *ANY* "dumb newbie" questions 
>>we
>>have why we learn how to use djgpp and the odd C query.
>>
>
>This isn't a bad idea, but I wonder who's going to subscribe to the
>newbie list.
>Mostly newbies, right.  Who will be there to answer "Why can't GCC find
>the include
>files"
Well I thought that just those experts who liked helping newbies out
could subscribe to the NG.
>
>I very much agree with your proposal of splitting c.o.m.d into a
>moderated and an
>unmoderated NG.  However, I think this requires some type of vote by
>people, and
>I also worry about the mailing list.  Can DJ's mail server handle two
>lists?  Does DJ
>want to use it for two at once?
I'd uneducationally say that the mailer would still be handling the same
amount of mail.Just to two seperate NG's.

-- 

David Jenkins