toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) (02/23/84)
. The problem with net.general is that the title misleads new users into thinking it is intended for everything that doesn't fit elsewhere. I suggest using "net.system" or "net.priority" for news items which should go to every organization on the net, and removing the net.general news group entirely. Tom Long
reza@ihuxb.UUCP (H. Reza Taheri) (03/01/84)
{}
I like the idea of changing net.general to net.priority or some such
thing.
Be careful out there.
H. Reza Taheri
...!(most major machines on the net)!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza
(312)-979-1040decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (03/02/84)
The suggestion was made in net.followup to change the name of net.general
because that name is misleading ("Hmmm...my article doesn't seem to fit
any of these categories, it's just kind of general...Oh HEY! This one
looks like just what I need!"). Net.priority was the suggested name,
but obviously there could be severe problems with changing the name.
A lot of software knows about net.general and its special role, and expects
it to be called that. Can we trust net.news.adm's to update their code?
Or even to incorporate posted changes? Maybe. But it's an interesting idea.
Dave Decot "Net.general needs love and attention, too."
decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (03/02/84)
re: I like the idea of changing net.general to net.priority or some such thing. We already did. It's net.announce. net.general is still there just for upward compatibility (and because there are still broken sites out there that can't handle net.announce.) Mark Horton
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (03/04/84)
I think the popularity of net.announce since its inception demonstrates the problem with most of the objections to net.general. When you strip away all the not important to important people stuff there isn't much left. Personally, I think the status quo isn't so bad. A little barking now and then by the watchdogs keeps things from getting out of hand. I also think there is a need for a topic that has the properties of "general." Something that most everyone reads and yet is general purpose. For one thing it reduces the need for multiple posting if you want to access a sizeable percentage of the membership. Perhaps a better idea would be to borrow from the (old?) BBC. Use two channels: net.general and net.general2.(or net.general3, etc) Getting progressively less restrained. People could subscribe to as many as they felt they could stand. Dick Grantges hound!rfg
mush@dsd.UUCP (03/13/84)
How about changing net.general to net.global or net.worldwide?
bernerus@chalmers.UUCP (Christer Bernerus) (03/19/84)
Why not change "net." to "world." ?