Re: Updating definition of "bogus" groups?

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Alberto Luaces wrote:

>> This seems like it would be more handy for cleaning up
>> "dangling" groups.
>>
>> Does anyone have an opinion on that idea, one way or
>> the other?
>
> I would remove the term `bogus` altogether, it's too vague,
> and replace it with something more descriptive. This is
> independent from the fact that the behaviour could be more
> useful, as you describe.

The "secondary" term is also problematic as in practice it is
a way of using _several_ methods, and they don't necessarily
relate so any hierarchy what is the primary method and what
isn't doesn't make any sense necessarily.

This will probably remain so, but yes, if you build even more
problematic definitions on top of that, it gets even
more problematic.

But instead of getting confused by terminology, which is
always going to be incorrect to some degree in any applied
endeavor, if we are talking `gnus-check-bogus-newsgroups',
what is that it does that is useful? What to do, or not do for
that matter, should be based on that.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal