Ayep, I use them all the time, I still find it more convient
in the newsgroup format, but that is a personal oppinion, if
no one likes the idea then nothing will become of it.
>
>> 1) a private feed to subscribed sites, they would be required
>> not not redistribute the group to other outbound feeds from
>> there site, and to restrict access to the group from the
>> general public.
>Can you understand that people who are on that list and use/have PMs are
>not only ISPs, and sometimes can't be considered as 'site' ?
Absolutly, see options 2 & 3.
>
>> 2) for sites that don't maintain a news server that they can
>> easely do this with you can have a remote news server that
>> these people could request privlaged access to the server for
>> the sole perpose of reading this newsgroup.
>Can you also understand that some people don't want to access a news server
>for such and such groups, and another one for such and such group ?
>Having to switch news server isn't really interesting.
Ofcorse, somepeople would find it an option, other would not, see option 3
>
>> 3) an email-to-news gateway could be maintained for the few that
>> have no access to news at all(if there are any).
>
>eh .. that's the solution. Why don't you create a newsgroup local to *your*
>server, and relay the list to your local group.
>With that, you will have what you want, a newsgroup.
Read the first part of the message, that is exactly what I have done. The
reason for the suggestion, is that the messages would then be even more
orginized for threading perposes if people actualy posted them. Take
Megazone's replies to various emails, the subject gets modified and so
it becomes a new 'topic' rather than being associated with the message
he is responding to.
Jim McKenzie
mcs@isp.net