"comp.sys.3b2" and "comp.sources.3b2" anyone?

[Jim Mercer]

In article <1991Jan28.152827.8986 at mthvax.cs.miami.edu> aem at mthvax.cs.miami.edu writes:
>It seems that it would make more sense from the beginning to have a
>comp.sys.3b and comp.sources.3b since neither the unix-pc nor the u3b
>hierarchies are exactly high volume, then in the future if it was
>warranted subgroups comp.*.3b.1, comp.*.3b.2 could have been created.

comp.sys.3b1 got away with using a digit in the first position of a name.

i think comp.sys.3b.1 would cause real havoc as some programs may get confused
as to whether /usr/spool/news/comp/sys/3b/1 is an article or a group.

i was amazed no-one brought this up during the discussions for c.s.3b1

(not that i care, our system seems to be doing fine)

-- 
[ Jim Mercer  jim at lsuc.On.Ca  || ...!uunet!attcan!lsuc!jim    +1 416 947-5258 ]
[ Educational Systems Manager - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, CANADA  ]
[ Standards are great. They give non-conformists something to not conform to. ]
[      The opinions expressed here may or may not be those of my employer     ]