Re: Canal+ crash - Re: Annulation : Crosspost excessif

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024, D wrote:
"thank you for your reply . . ."
Thanks likewise for replying politely.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024, D wrote:
"cross-posting to the usenet newsgroups may have seemed like a
good idea at the time, but the mondation of '93 aka "eternal september"
flooded usenet into the meslee; one or two cross-posted newsgroups may
seem reasonable to some, but posting articles separately, one group at
a time i.e. without cross-posting, makes better sense, irrespective of
what some have called "multi-posting" because not all usenet newsgroup
subscribers, contributors, lurkers, etc., are actually reading in more
than one of those included newsgroups; anyone can assign "follow-up to"
when replying to articles that were posted in one newsgroup to another
newsgroup (etiquette to announce follow-up in body of reply), so there
was never any need for the inherently awkward praxis of "cross-posting""
Dict.cc and WWW.Merriam-Webster.com and a dictionary failed to explain "mondation" to me and I did not look up "meslee".
Thanks for appreciating that I do not attempt to annoy you. I am in the space industry as an ex-employee of the European Space Agency where we believe that redundancy (backups) is an essential policy. I continue during more than twenty years of USENET to think that cross-posting is good. I rarely do it, because most USENET articles by me are suited for a small number of newsgroups. For an example of a person who disagrees with me, cf. a Java programmer many years ago.
Eternal September does not permit cross-posting to more than 3 newsgroups, which I recently find to be too restrictive. But hey! Eternal September is gratis and good. Not all USENET servers carry the same newsgroups. Following upto just 1 newsgroup can deprive readers (who read the start of a thread) of important contributions to a thread.
I refer you to the last paragraph of
news:0f0dc30e-a92d-364f-ed16-1247fb220b57@Strand_in_London.Gov.UK
With best regards,
N. C. P. de G.