jr@taurus.UUCP (12/06/83)
I cannot see the point of generating local "abc.group" names. The idea of a distribution area exists already. The advantages have already been seen by us all. It is also already generally aggreed that messages are posted to "net.xyz, distr uk" rather than to "uk.xyz" (note use of British sectioning :-) ) thus avoiding a large number of groups called "uk.*" with similar contents to their "net.*" counterparts. So why do we have local groups called uk.xyz etc at all? Why is the distribution area a prefix to the name of the newsgroup? In fact, is even the prefix "net." really needed? The prefix serves only one purpose as far as I can see. It tells the reader of the message who else is likely be reading it. It would be better (in my view) to drop *all* area prefixes and include a header line: Distribution: which is checked by the distributing software. The decission to forwarded (or not forward) a message would then be made both on newsgroup name and distribution area. This would also cut down the *total* number of newsgroups around. -- ++jim <england>!ukc!hirst1!minotaur!taurus!jr ++jim