Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!iuvax!watmath!looking!brad From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: proposed new distribution category Message-ID: <20709@looking.on.ca> Date: 24 Sep 89 05:18:53 GMT References: <757@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> <4379@ncar.ucar.edu> <285@van-bc.UUCP> <4386@ncar.ucar.edu> <642@ccssrv.UUCP> <1989Sep23.012427.8789@sq.sq.com> Reply-To: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Lines: 16 Class: discussion Actually, I used to argue that distribution and hierarchy should be completely disjoint, and in fact this was the reason that "Distribution:" became a header -- in the old days there was no such thing. But later I came to realize you can't have them entirely disjoint. Quite often you want to have a group called "local.foo" which is a local version of a global "foo" group. For example, most places have a "dist.general" which was the local version of net.general. Of course, you can still implement this by making the two disjoint, by naming the local groups "local_general" instead of using the distribution as a prefix, but it sure is convenient to do the latter and get automatic correct distribution. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473