Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari!otc!metro!basser!usage!cad!skea
From: skea@cad.jmrc.eecs.unsw.oz (Alan Skea)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Binary groups need their own hierarchy
Keywords: bin.* hierarchy
Message-ID: <299@whelk.cad.jmrc.eecs.unsw.oz>
Date: 25 May 88 02:47:21 GMT
References: <397@pan.UUCP> <5284@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <231@mcf.UUCP> <4435@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com> <2676@louie.udel.EDU> <1008@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> <2687@louie.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: skea@cad.unsw.oz (Alan Skea)
Organization: JMRC, School of Electrical Engineering, UNSW, Australia
Lines: 9

Most complaints about binary groups seem to be based on the fact that
sites feel morally obliged to carry them because they are part of USENET
and USENET is one big network, there is no alternative (well, there is
alt but the binaries arn't in alt).  What would solve all the complaints
is if each top level group had its own backbone and was a logically
seperate network.  Then there could be a bin hierarchy or any number of
specialised hierarchies and only the people interested in them would
have any obligation to carry them.  I guess this would need a bit of
support in the software though.