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