🚀 go-pugleaf

According to dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov:
>emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>>[I'll] assume that the gateway can easily follow a name change, so I discount
>>the significance of the name change as it relates to the gateway.
>
>Sure, some gateways can follow name changes. What if there are some 
>gateways (which have this ability) that have been set up and left on 
>automatic? What if new maintainers have no idea how to change the name,
>or have no idea that the gateway even has the ability?

"What if someone's news system runs fine but they've lost the 'news'
password?  If we add a new newsgroup, they'll be left out!"

News software left on automatic is a ticking time bomb anyway.  It's
hard enough allowing for all the systems with administrators; avoiding
inconvenience to systems without administrators is flatly impossible.

>And again the point I raised above applies...why did it have to be
>changed in the first place. 

I guess the concept of "namespace consistency" means nothing to you.
But what of your fabled new reader?  A reasonable hierarchy benefits
him as he searches for topics of interest.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
                 just another elitist Usenet administrator