Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!umich!sharkey!itivax!scs
From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: A new idea for USENET?
Message-ID: <4917@itivax.iti.org>
Date: 8 Feb 90 19:37:26 GMT
References: <5633@barn.COM> <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: news@itivax.iti.org
Lines: 21

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Actually, there is a reason, if we're talking about widely-distributed
>hierarchies:  the lengths of the lines in the sys files are already
>getting ridiculous.  Carrying a new hierarchy requires explicit action
>by every sysadmin who wants it, and generally means a few more bytes
>in the sys-file line of every site he gives a full feed to.  This is
>already a damn nuisance; with "any number" of further hierachies, it
>will be an administrative nightmare.

I'd much prefer a long line in my sys file to the current glut of stuff
in the regular newsgroups.  It's not a nuisance, it's a benefit.  And
you should see the hideous sys file entries for some of our downstream
sites with narrow interests.  If well-formed well-managed heirarchies
can be set up, great.

I'd support changes to the name space rules (what, again?) if and only
if they involve *truly seperating* the existing heirarchies.  Let sci
set up their own rules, ditto rec, talk, etc.  No more of this crap on
{rec,talk,sci,foobar}.{aquaria,objectivism} -- a huge percentage of the
fight isn't whether or not to have the group, but where to create it.