Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site erix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!ukc!mcvax!enea!erix!leif
From: leif@erix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Net.politics to Europe, Lets start net.world-politics
Message-ID: <500@erix.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Jun-84 01:15:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: erix.500
Posted: Wed Jun 20 01:15:45 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 03:27:28 EDT
References: <443@erix.UUCP> <161@log-hb.UUCP> <404@kvvax4.UUCP> <483@erix.UUCP> <406@kvvax4.UUCP> <499@erix.UUCP>
Organization: L M Ericsson, Stockholm, Sweden
Lines: 29

I don't see what Koksvik or anyone else has to do with what we do
in or out of work. Of course we have about the same conditions as
in most other companies, and that includes a right to use the
computers outside of work for personal, non-commercial use.
It is not for him or the net administrators to decide what groups
are morally right for us to read and when.

In a perfect net the groups should be propagated after
demand.  A user subscribes to a number of groups, his site
subscribes to the requested groups from a backbone and so on.

Now, I am aware of the limited resources of our backbone sites
and that we have to limit the distribution more than we would
want. That's why we had the poll in eunet. If that poll said
that we should favor technical groups to groups like this one,
then that's what we should do. But we should *not* limit
groups because Koksvik thinks he is the conscience of our
companies!  It's up to the administrator on each node to limit
or not limit the number of groups available.

Now that I've finished this, I can punch in again...


	Leif Samuelsson
	LM ERICSSON Tel. Co.
	S-126 25  STOCKHOLM
	SWEDEN

	..{decvax, philabs}!mcvax!enea!erix!leif