Henri Sivonen wrote: >Indeed. But the failure to implement the reorg is still the problem and >it is not the fault of the well-intentioned end users who typed >"*mozilla*" in Googles group search field and got back >netscape.public.mozilla.general as the only relevant group. > No, that user might be well-intentioned, nevertheless still does the wrong thing. The name of a newsgroup does not sufficiently describe its content or the posting rules. That's what charters are for. Our charter is *utterly clear* that end users posts are not wanted. I agree that we don't distribute it well enough.
Red Drag Diva, I like your idea to post the "redirector" post periodically. That's something many newsgroups do. I also think that your concrete content proposal is OK. I especially like the link to the charter (the /community.html page) (Maybe you could make that link more prominent?) and the note that the newsgroup names are a "historical accident". Oddly, that doesn't seem to stop some people in the last day(s) to argue that "public" means "anyone can say whatever they want" or similar crap.
