Xref: utzoo news.admin:7721 news.groups:14879 comp.mail.uucp:3784 comp.os.vms:19845
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!rex!wuarchive!decwrl!pyramid!romain
From: romain@pyramid.pyramid.com (Romain Kang)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,comp.mail.uucp,comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: New newsgroup hierarchy
Message-ID: <91955@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 21 Nov 89 21:25:46 GMT
References: <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp> <1989Nov16.172110.21492@utzoo.uucp> <91457@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1989Nov20.162426.6252@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: romain@pyramid.pyramid.com (Romain Kang)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 25

In article <1989Nov20.162426.6252@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
| In article <91457@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:
| >...Think of it as administrative friendliness.
| 
| I think of it as administrative hostility, actually.  The last thing I want
| is a dozen more pointless top-level groups cluttering up my sys file.

You're seeing opposite sides of the same coin.  Those of us who don't
want the new groups will have an easier time if vmsnet.* groups get their
own hierarchy, and vice versa for the other case.

The reason I see the inet distribution as a fiasco is there's no easy
way to ensure the messages in the inet groups go out with the correct
distribution.  If there is, then why do well-run inet sites like rutgers
still dump over 500K of inet each week onto their non-inet neighbors?
(Through no administrative fault, I might add.)

Certainly, it should not be difficult to make news software at the
posting sites check headers and attach a Distribution: when the
posters neglect to do so, but then how do you handle cross-posting
between two groups with different implicit distributions?  As far
as I know, no one has addressed this issue yet.
--
''!!x89 dimaryP a fo edisni deppart m'I  !pleH``
``oNhwre eenraa  sab dsab iegnt arppdei sndi efoa P /CTAr nuingnM -SOD!S!!''