[Coco] Re: UseNet *"Bit.Listserv.CoCo"* NewsGroup elimination

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 12:21 AM 3/29/04 -0500, John E. Malmberg wrote:
>I have no idea if any have actually been eliminated.  There is in the 
>news server protocols the ability to create and remove newsgroups.
>All the designated owner of the hierarchy has to do is issue the 
>message.  And if the other newservers choose to operate on it, the 
>newsgroup is gone.  In practice it probably happens very rarely.

My point is only that I've never seen a cancel message acted upon, if for
no other reason than news admins can't be chasing down the validity of any
given one of a few hundred thousand groups. Since the chance of a cancel
message for a newsgroup being acted upon is so insignificant, what is the
worry here? I'd certainly like to gate it somehow from gmane with the
munged addresses, but with the spam issues, it would be one-way. That would
result in broken threads because of the inability to post from
bit.listserv.coco back to gmane or maltedmedia.

Now, something more important, in my mind:

There is a hard-core group over there waving the "bit.listserv.coco is the
original group" flag. I understand that Randy, Rogelio, and others have
that sense of loyalty, but I don't know if there is an *effective*
long-term solution.

Anyone have a solid idea of how to make it work? If I can arrange somehow
to gate gmane.comp.hardware.tandy.coco over to bit.listserv.coco (with the
munged addresses), along with a footer that indicates that posting back via
bit.listserv.coco isn't possible, is that even somewhat workable?

I think it has some value. Google doesn't index the gmane servers, of
course, but it does index bit.listserv.coco (which is why I've been posting
a regular message there, despite Randy's sour responses). There's got to be
some way to find this group's correspondence easily -- whether from the FTP
site or dedicated news server right now, or from "clean" postings sent out
to the bit group. 

What do you all think?

Dennis