spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) (10/17/84)
I have received a fair amount of mail recently suggesting that
"na.forssale" be deleted and replaced by "net.forsale". The arguement
here is that people shoud restrict the distribution themselves.
Furthermore, sites in Europe and Asia can simply not have the group
sent to them, thus achieving the same goal as the "na" part of
the group.
So, what do the majority of people think?
--
Off the Wall of Gene Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-sally}!gatech!spafsteven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (10/18/84)
In article <10468@gatech.UUCP spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) writes: > I have received a fair amount of mail recently suggesting that "na.forssale" > be deleted and replaced by "net.forsale". The arguement here is that people > shoud restrict the distribution themselves. Furthermore, sites in Europe > and Asia can simply not have the group sent to them, thus achieving the same > goal as the "na" part of the group. Why does it bother anyone that it's called na.forsale? It seems to me a good idea because it explicitely states its maximum distribution; no one gets the idea that it also goes to net. Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/26/84)
> > be deleted and replaced by "net.forsale". The arguement here is that people > > shoud restrict the distribution themselves. Furthermore, sites in Europe > > and Asia can simply not have the group sent to them, thus achieving the same > > goal as the "na" part of the group. > > Why does it bother anyone that it's called na.forsale? It seems to me a good > idea because it explicitely states its maximum distribution; no one gets the > idea that it also goes to net. > > Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax I have to argue FOR na.forsale. Reasons: (1) the track record shows that people DON'T restrict the distribution themselves. I see no real short term change in these attitudes, either. (2) Europe has restricted itself from some groups that it might otherwise have wanted because of the amount of 'garbage' in it from their point of view. I don't know offhand if they are getting net.general or not right now, but there were long discussions about it because of the stuff in net.general that simply wasn't applicable to them (a lot of it should now be in na.forsale...) (3) when the 'net' groups were created, usenet was a US (and possibly canadian) phenomena. It has grown and changed significantly. The local groups (you should see ba and ca.politics right now) have shown that regionalizing works, and works well. I don't think many people in New York would particularly care about our propositions, anyway. My personal feeling is that the 'net' distribution is obsolete and that all of the existing groups should be renamed to show their appropriate distribution, whether it is world, na, or usa. Of course, reality makes that impossible, so I'm NOT suggesting it. I DO think that all new groups should have their reasonable distribution considered and used. If it doesn't go to Europe, don't fool people into thinking it will by using net, use na or usa instead. Just because we've always done something some way doesn't mean we should continue that into the future-- remember, someone was once the FIRST usenet site. Where would we be today if they had been satisfied with keeping it local? chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....