From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9147dc34796bfd30
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Should c.l.ada group split
Date: 1998/12/21
Message-ID: <1998Dec21.174825.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 424648900
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
References: <75md0v$n3p$1@plug.news.pipex.net>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 914280509 1071 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2]
Organization: LJK Software
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-12-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <75md0v$n3p$1@plug.news.pipex.net>, "Mark Fisher" <xuq39@dial.pipex.com> writes:
> After having followed the discussions in this group
> over the past months, I wonder is partitioning
> the newsgroups along the following lines
> 
> .83.language
> .83.tools
> .83.tools compilers
> .95.core
> 95.real-time-annex
> .......
> etc

I do not think it would be a good idea:

	1. there is not enough traffic
	2. there is a high rate of people who would not put their
		post in the proper group anyway because they are
		not regular participants.

Larry Kilgallen