>Why not stick to the existing Usenet conventions of language, system and >other? Thus, your REXX list would be comp.lang.rexx, Nutworks would be >misc.doc.nutworks, etc.? This way makes a minimum amount of hassle for both >networks and there's only one thing to learn. >---------- >David Boyes (503) 686-4394 |BITNET: 556@OREGON1 While this seems like a good idea at first glance, you cannot start giving these groups standard Usenet names without first getting approval by the Usenet hierarchy. Creating a group comp.lang.rexx would almost definitely require sending postings from it into Usenet, and I am not sure that this is what is wanted, nor is there currently an easy way to link the Usenet group with a LISTSERV group. I therefore favor using bit. names. We get a feed from Penn State, and Bill Verity calls the groups 'bit.listserv.groupname' where 'groupname' is the actual LISTSERV name of the group. This way has always seemed fine to me, as it makes it simple for users to map the Netnews group to the corresponding LISTSERV group. Bill