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