Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site mcvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!piet
From: piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.internat
Subject: Re: net.internat
Message-ID: <852@mcvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 06:23:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcvax.852
Posted: Tue Oct 22 06:23:39 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 06:13:31 EDT
References: <6659@boring.UUCP> <272@dlvax1.datlog.UUCP> <203@iclbra.UUCP>
Reply-To: piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema)
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 21
Xref: linus net.news.group:3260 net.internat:52

<>

Although I agree that this newsgroup has in no way been set up in the proper
way a new newsgroup should be set up on USENET/EUNET, I think - given the
reactions I've seen sofar - this newsgroup should *not* be removed and should
*not* be a EUNET-only newsgroup. After all internationalization (-sation) *is*
a technical issue of worldwide, and thus net-wide interest. And don't forget
that USENET is not identical with the USA, but also covers e.g. Australia,
Japan, Korea etc. Those countries cannot receive eunet newsgroups.

Maybe the name chosen was a bit too general; in that case it should just be
renamed (net.unix-intl?).

And if there's really (and amazingly) not a single bit of interest in this
newsgroup in the US, spreading over the US can always be inhibited in a very
early stage, without affecting the forwarding to the other countries mentioned
and without the newsgroup having to be removed.

-- 
	Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam
	(piet@mcvax.UUCP)