"William H. Magill" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>   In other words, can I post with *assurance* a reply to the original
>>   poster that I quoted earlier, that this (only one gateway to/from a
>>   newsgroup) is policy *everywhere*?
>>
>No. Only a high probability. There is no such thing as absolute truth on
>the Internet, and even less on Usenet. And don't forget - the Internet
>
>Once things leave the control of the listserv environment for the anarchy
>of Netnews, anything can happen for any reason - and frequently does.
>

Ok, then I can assume that there's a high probability that a
second global gateway won't happen, because it's just not a good idea.
The only way it'll happen is if someone sets up something that's
not really ... covered ... under the present policy.  And, if
someone does so, the problems will be obvious.

What if someone does set up a global second gateway, and it causes
problems? What kind of "recourse" do I have? Any?

>>Has anyone ever *experienced* a second gateway being opened?
>>What was it like?
>
>The usual symptom is that people in the newsgroup see one thing and the
>mailing list see another, people see answers to questions never asked, etc.
>

The Karnak Effect? I already have that.

Less so than at one time, we routinely have answers that come through the
gateway days (up to a week) before the question arrives for approval from
usenet. (This is not a complaint!!!) Wouldn't want to have it magnified
though.


Thanks. :-)

Maureen