IP Reservation/MAC

Please do not multi-post. I addressed your question in your comp.dcom.sys.cisco posting of the same question.

Thank you Walter!

Very knowledgeable!

There's nothing wrong with multi-posting. Cross-posting, yes, but he didn't do that. Not everyone in here reads comp.dcom.sys.cisco as well as this group.

-Russ.

Cross-posting (with Followup-To!) would be much better than multi-posting, IMHO. Would you prefer reading the same post over and over again if someone happens to multi-post to the groups you read? I know I wouldnt.

Actually there's *everything* wrong with multiposting. If something really appears to be on-topic in more than one group: cross-post it and set a f'up to the most fitting group, so the discussion can take place in this one group. Anyone interested in the topic can subscribe to that group (if they aren't anyway), anyone not interested won't be bothered.

cu

If one crossposts, everybody still has to see it in both groups. However, people in one group are drawn into a discussion that occurs also inside another group, where the audience is not what they might expect, the frame of reference may be different, and the skilsets might be different.

If one multiposts, people within a group see it, and their conversation is not replicated elsewhere.

For readers, people participating in both groups will see it in both groups either way, with most news readers. People participating in one group, will see and discuss it only within the context of that group.

For the poster, the topic will be approached in two different ways based on the approach within the two different groups. Therefore, although he must maintain two separate threads, he may gain insights by seen two different approaches, rather than in some cases watching the two different camps argue about who is right.

Multi-posts may be a slight inconvenience to you, but I've seen crossposts erupt into incredible flame wars and off topic discussions *far* more often, which reduces the quality of the usenet experience for everyone in my opinion. Except those that enjoy flame wars. In many cases, a crossposted post simply becomes noise in the group it's not best suited for, going on forever to the inconvenience of all within that other group, while the main group it was posted in has a lively discussion on it. A multiposted post that isn't in the group it's best suited for will either live or die on it's own merits within the group, and if it sparks no discussion, then none must be endured by the group members that are clearly not interested in it.

-Russ.

Not in newsreaders I am familiar with: they follow the Newsgroups: and Xref: lines and mark the posting as read in every newsgroup in which it occurs -- and they do that even for messages which have been automatically "killed" based upon the user's killfile criteria.

And meanwhile, the readers in each group are replicating the research and explanatory time that is going on in the other groups, and not being able to draw upon the insights of those other posters to synthesize a complete answer.

Well, this is one of those debates that can rage on for as long as you want then I guess. You see it your way, I see it mine. To some degree I think it depends on what sort of newsgroups you frequent, and if crossposting is used carefully and responsibly or not.

-Russ.

Everybody sees the *OP* in both groups. The whole subsequent discussion will continue in exactly *one* group. And after reading a posting in one group, any decent newsreader will mark the same posting in every other group as read.

The conversation isn't replicated at all. It takes place where it's most on-topic. That's the whole point.

Most definitely not. You obviously don't understand how Followup-To works.

Which is exactly the problem.

That's woolly thinking. More likely is that he'll miss out on insights he might have gained through synergy effects (person A making a comment that inspires a subsequent comment of person B).

They are a major inconvenience to most regulars.

I usually see this happen only when people lack either basic skills of netiquette or handling their killfiles or both.

It does not. It's a single posting that can be easily ignored and will drop out of sight after a few days, because *each* subsequent posting will be directed to the group given in the Followup-To.

IOW a multiposted post will become noise in almost every group it's posted to. And since the discussion stays in that group, it will become one hell of a lot more noise than a crossposting in those groups.

cu

Consider it from the point of view of the people who put in a lot of time answering questions. They post an answer in one newsgroup, and then they see the same question in another newsgroup. What do they do? Just post an "I already answered this!" notice? Or do they go and find the googlegroups link to their new posting and post that? Or do they go back and take a copy of their previous answer and post it in the other location(s)? Given the different topic concentrations of the different newsgroups, are the question answerers expected to post their answer to the other location(s), except editted to reflect the prime interest of the other location(s) ?

The OP posted a Cisco PIX firewall specific question, and multi-posted it to the Cisco specific newsgroup and to the firewalls newsgroup. Under your theory of parallel discussions, the Cisco newsgroup concentrates on the Cisco-isms of the question, and someone else in the firewall newsgroup answers the more general firewallish aspects. Except that because the question was series specific, if someone who doesn't know the device well answers in the firewall newsgroup, chances are that someone who -does- know the device well is going to have to step in and spend time correcting the other posters -- time that would not have to be spent if the other posters had seen the specialized information that went by in the Cisco newsgroup.

How many news groups do you follow? 2? 3? Multiposts get real old real fast when you are looking at 80 to 100 newsgroups every day. Most of those flame wars can be eliminated by simply blocking posts to certain groups with a killfile. An example is killing posts crossposted to any newsgroup that has the word 'advocacy' in the name. You can do that for any hot button group. Most multiposters don't crosspost simply because they are not aware of the possibility. The dumb ones are often multiposting because they don't want to use a search engine first (which would provide the answer to their question in the majority of cases), and are shot-gunning to groups that have a word in the name that might be relevant. Problem is, the news server I'm reading from carries 37 groups with the word 'firewall' and 237 with the word 'security' in the name.

When a 'Followup-To:' header is used, the discussion continues in that group, and ceases in the groups that were spewed to. Also, if such cross-posting disturbs you, most newsreaders can killfile on the number of groups listed in the Newsgroup: or Xref: headers.

I have an easier solution. When I find someone who likes to multipost, I have a very commodious killfile.

Old guy