Xref: utzoo news.admin:3201 news.software.b:1514 news.misc:1670
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!ncc!lyndon
From: lyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b,news.misc
Subject: Re: Default Distribution Proposal
Message-ID: <10360@ncc.Nexus.CA>
Date: 31 Jul 88 01:16:03 GMT
References: <1988Jul26.232430.1599@utzoo.uucp> <6333@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <539@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov>
Reply-To: lyndon@ncc.nexus.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Organization: Nexus Computing Inc.
Lines: 24

In article <539@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) writes:
>                        My feeling was that the inconvenience of typing
>a few extra keystrokes would discourage users from using the
>workarounds.  I was wrong.  Not only have rn users taken to using the
>-F switch to set the line prefix for quotes, they've gotten into the
>habit of adding fodder lines to the body of the text *whether they need
>to or not*.
 
>Let us not underestimate our users or ourselves.  While I like the idea
>of a default distribution in principle, experience shows that adding
>features to encourage righteous behavior gives us all one more thing to
>tweak, break, and ignore.

I don't think the two directly equate. Line inclusion is an all or
nothing proposition - either the article goes or it doesn't.

By setting a restricted default distribution (say local), it's
just as much work to change it to usa as it is to change it to
world. I would think that in most cases, because the poster has
to expend a *bit* of thought choosing the distribution, they
will choose something reasonable.

-- 
VE6BBM   {alberta,pyramid,uunet}!ncc!lyndon  lyndon@Nexus.CA