Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site kobold.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!kobold!tjt
From: tjt@kobold.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: A Thought on Newsgroup Structure (lo - (nf)
Message-ID: <265@kobold.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Feb-84 10:05:37 EST
Article-I.D.: kobold.265
Posted: Wed Feb  1 10:05:37 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 04:47:14 EST
References: <5248@uiucdcs.UUCP> <900@cbosgd.UUCP>
Organization: Masscomp, Westford, MA
Lines: 23

Everybody seems to agree that grouping discussions within a newsgroup is
the right way to organization presentation of news.  It is also clear
that notes has been doing this all along.  How about some feedback from
notes users on how often the followup mechanism gets subverted and how
annoying this is?

Also, I suspect the situation will be self correcting.  Currently,
preserving the Subject: and/or References: is only important to a
minority of people using Usenet (i.e. notesfile sites and 2.11 test
sites).  Therefore, there is little incentive for the rest of us to
prefer using followup commands to posting new articles.  Once 2.11
becomes as widespread as 2.10 is now, the majority of people will
benefit from properly using followup's and will be equally
inconvenienced by new articles which should have been followups.
This should provide the necessary motivation for paying more attention
to the Subject: and References: line.

Note: I assume that the line printer interface would also group
articles by discussions so that line printer users would not be
disenfranchised.
-- 
	Tom Teixeira,  Massachusetts Computer Corporation.  Westford MA
	...!{ihnp4,harpo,decvax}!masscomp!tjt   (617) 692-6200 x275