Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!ut-sally!riddle
From: riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: usa.all? (etc)
Message-ID: <434@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Nov-83 12:16:21 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.434
Posted: Sat Nov 19 12:16:21 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Nov-83 01:32:28 EST
References: <245@turtleva.UUCP> <775@ihuxr.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 24

Don Stanwick (ihuxr!stanwyck) says:

>> I second (or whatever number we are up to) the motion for a usa.all,
>> AND a na.all.
>> 
>> I further propose the following groups as directly related to the above:
>> 	usa.politics		na.politics
>> 	usa.flame		na.flame

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the whole point in creating
geographical distributions like "usa.all" was to AVOID having to create
newsgroups like "usa.politics".  Discussions of interest to a limited region
should be posted to "net.whatever" but with a distribution of "wherever.all".

In many areas on the net, such distributions exist and are commonly used to
limit discussion to the city, state or cluster of states where it is pertinent.
We already have "ut.all", "austin.all" and "tx.all" distributions, for example;
although there hasn't as yet been a lot of use made of them, I'm sure they'll
become more important as more Texas sites join the net.
----
Prentiss Riddle
{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP