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

D <noreply@mixmin.net> 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"

[...]

I disagree.  Multiposting goes against time-honoured Usenet custom and
usage, not to mention netiquette.  We have disagreed about this before.

From my POV multiposted articles are an irritating nuisance likely to
result in persistently multiposting authors being globally killfiled.  I
think that I am not alone in this opinion.

When crossposting, the normal action in civilised groups is to limit the
number of crossposted groups to the minimum possible and to set the
-single- most relevant group as the Followup-To: group.

The reason for crossposting rather than multiposting is that proper
Newsreader User-Agents will mark all crossposts as read when the article
has been read once, thus sparing the reader from unwanted repetition.

--
^Ï^.       Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS      -      Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.