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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	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: dewarr@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Should c.l.ada group split
Date: 1998/12/22
Message-ID: <75nbcp$ie6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 424727872
References: <75md0v$n3p$1@plug.news.pipex.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x1.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Dec 22 05:40:41 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1998-12-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <75md0v$n3p$1@plug.news.pipex.net>,
  "Mark Fisher" <xuq39@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> 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

Well I guess a "few months" is not long enough to have
been around when this subject was discussed previously,
but the general feeling is that the traffic is too low
to warrant this kind of splitting, and as always, threads
wander too widely to compartmenatlize them.

Now if we could divide the group into

comp.lang.ada.interesting-sensible-stuff
comp.lang.ada.garbage-and-spam

now that would be useful :-)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own