Hello All.          ...Over the last few years, I've occasionally
mentioned the possibility of "gating" the FidoNet MooseChat echo to
the alt.moose UseNet newsgroup.  Usually the idea has met with little
or no interest.  In December, I decided to mention the idea one more
time and then "write it off" as an idea whose time had passed, but
this time around there was a wee bit of interest.

So, here's a more detailed outline of what this would mean.  What I
would like is some feedback on whether or not there would still be any
benefit.  I would also like anyone who strongly objects to the idea to
speak up as well, either here, or in routed netmail, or in e-mail to
hart{at}io.com  Since things are pretty slow in here, I think getting
some sort of consensus might take us a month or two.  Onward...

While alt.moose is a non-moderated newsgroup that is part of the "no
holds barred" alt.* newsgroup hierarchy, it has no regular users.
There may be a rare "moose related" message, but most traffic is
"spam" cross-posted advertisements.  So, on the UseNet side, there
will be no legitimate objection to "gating" MooseChat.

Since both MooseChat and alt.moose will probably stay at a low message
traffic level, it would be possible for a gateway operator to screen
any UseNet messages and stop advertisements, "adult" messages, or any
other UseNet messages that would not be appropriate for the FidoNet
MooseChat echo.

                  ...For example, for kingston.bbs.fido.users249 any
FidoNet Users249 echo messages are automatically sent to the UseNet
newsgroup, but UseNet posts are checked before being "gated" to
the FidoNet echo.

MooseChat messages would be "gated" with some variation on the
fidonet.org address.  So, unless your net has made arrangements with
the fidonet.org sysop, any e-mail spammers would end up with a
useless address.  If your net has such an arrangement, I could add an
anti-spam string to our addresses.  With my present configuration,
this message would be "from" stephen.hart{at}f127.n249.z1.fidonet.org

So, having hopefully eliminated any fear that "gating" would disrupt
MooseChat, we next must ask whether there would be any benefit?

I feel that I probably should have pushed for a "gateway" three or
four years ago, when people like Mike Jenkinson were moving from
FidoNet to the Internet.  So, my first question is whether alt.moose
would lure any former MooseChat participants back?  Anyone have any
idea?

Would people like Tammy or Clyde, who occasionally read and post to
MooseChat via telnet BBSes like the cafe.dyndns.org site, read and
post more often?

Would some of the present MooseChat participants find UseNet access
to alt.moose more convenient?

I'll touch on a couple other thoughts in my next two messages, but
probably the most important question is whether a MooseChat/alt.moose
FidoNetUseNet gateway would have a real benefit for us?


TTYL,           ...Steve


P.S.       ...alt.moose may not be as widespread as I had thought.  I
just checked the Google Groups web site and found that they have
alt.moose configured as a "place holder" for alt.moose.rights and do
not let you post to alt.moose

Why not only do they not carry alt.moose, but they also have not set
up the alt.moose.what-is-the-proper-plural newsgroup.  What can I say?

YitWotM.           ...S.

---