 | | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3aa34df1.136496...net.com... (...) Hmmm. I tend to think it's generally a good idea, but are people gonna use it? I think you're still gonna get general Lego ranting & raving in .general, but (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) Ahhh--BINGO! Those are *very* *nice* and *short* name components!!! (...) So you're saying?--deleting the super-lower-level metro groups in .loc.au would be (possibly) a step forward but deleting the state-level groups loc.au.xxx would be a (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3aa41e91.189907...net.com... (...) (.loc.au.vic), (...) per (...) think (...) Even (...) yep, basically I think that would work well _with .loc.au_ other countries may vary. (...) in (...) (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I agree with Ross. Archive all sub-state groups, retain loc.au.xxx (state-level groups), allow posting at state-level groups (for "who's booking the meeting hall?" type questions). .org.au seems to be working okay for organisation/market (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
Dave Low <stinglessbee@hotSPA...Email.com> wrote in message news:G9t0tt.5BE@lugnet.com... (...) (.loc.au.vic), (...) 1 per (...) think (...) level. >> > Even if we get our LUGs in the .org hierarchy (below), I think we still >> >need state groups (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.loc.au)
|
