1) The Undernet has ways for dealing with attmpted takeovers and the like.
2) There are 4 undernet server ops who live on #macintosh. There won't be
any problems with gatecrashers... Also, there is a treaty in place
between the #win95 channel and #macintosh.
3) If the undernet was advertised in a major magazine, we'll get our
usership up (esp. phoenix.az.us.undernet.org, the server at AMUG).
But of course, if we want to explore this option, we'll have to run it by
cowboy first.
EFnet is FAR too crowded as it is, and wouldn't hold up well to a
question/answer type of forum. The net is too unstable, and I can assure
you that there will be at least 1 netsplit.
Just my $0.02.
dan-
On Tue, 26 Sep 1995, The Shop wrote:
> >Ya know, we could hold it on Undernet #macintosh :)
> >We'd have more control over things like takeovers there, and
> >AMUG has its own undernet server, which makes it an even more logical choice.
> >
> >(Imagine 200 or so people who read the MacWorld article and are piling
> >into EFNet #macintosh. Not A Happy Thought.)
> >
> >-jadin
>
> That makes the most sense... or you could hold it on a non-hubbed server.
> Infinet actually has one, irc.infi.net, this would guarantee the ultimate
> in stablity and channel stability, as you are assured of having gate
> crashers.
>
> Tripp
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Tripp Sims (theshop@richmond.infi.net) -++- The Shop - PrePress Solutions
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> =
>
>
>