comp.sys.3b1.*?

[Bob Wilber]

David Sandberg writes:
>... Therefore, if we consider the source traffic sufficient to merit
>it's own group (no comment either way about that), I would suggest
>it belongs in comp.sources.3b1, rather than under comp.sys.3b1.*.

David Sandberg is right.  The only sources groups not under comp.sources are
our own unix-pc.sources and gnu.emacs.sources, both of which are in
"alternative" hierarchies.  And since the Guardians of the Net who read
news.groups love to shoot down any proposal that isn't *exactly* right, the
names ought to be:

comp.sys.3b1       (no need to append a .general)
comp.sources.3b1

As for having a news group name that begins with a digit -- I've noticed a
group called "comp.bugs.4bsd" in the comp hierarchy so "3b1" should be okay.

The traffic in the .sources group is light, the reason for putting it in its
own group is to make archiving more convenient (which may be done automatically
at some sites).  Anyhow, the convention already established in the proposals
for the new comp.unix and comp.sys.amiga hierarchies is that in the voting
you can vote for each group individually.  So if the net in its wisdom votes
"no" on comp.sources.3b1, we might still get comp.sys.3b1, and sources will 
simply have to be posted there.

Bob Wilber    wilber at homxb.att.com