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