Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!chris From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: Suggestion for *MAJOR* topic reorganization Message-ID: <5594@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Mar-84 01:01:01 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.5594 Posted: Fri Mar 2 01:01:01 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Mar-84 23:15:33 EST References: <696@nsc.UUCP> <2613@alice.UUCP> <708@nsc.UUCP> <1022@pegasus.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 45 I agree with ``let's get rid of net.xyz in favor of Newsgroups: xyz Distribution: net'' I also like the idea of having readnews say ------------------ Newsgroup: foo.bar (Discussion of bar as related to foo, except on Tuesdays) ------------------ -- at least once (more often may be too annoying, especially to those of us who sometimes use 300 baud). I also think that reorganizing the newsgroup structure would be helpful, but I don't think it can be done without much pain -- **unless** there were a "rename group" control message. So let's get a news 2.11, with the rename control message and "correct" (whatever that is) "Distribution:" handling and the new "this group is for whatever" explanation for first-time readers; shortly afterward, send out rename messages (several of them, from all backbone sites, just in case), and *pouf* (cloud of greasy black smoke), everything will be neatly rearranged. "But," you ask, "what about the sites that don't convert to 2.11?" Well, everything will be OK up until the groups are all renamed. At that point, unless 2.11 has an AUTONEWNG option, these people will have to actually *create* the net.* groups just to post (and receive) anything. This will probably be such a pain that most of them will convert instead. In other words, I'm saying *don't write code for AUTONEWNG in 2.11*. It can be reinstalled in a later version (2.11.1?) if it seems necessary. Actually I'd think that a "list of active newsgroups at the time this version of news was made" would be more appropriate; people could set up an initial version of the active file from that (or better yet get it from their news feed site). One last thought: will 2.10 pass unknown control messages along? If not, my suggested method won't work. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris.umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay