I think we need to, as a group, address some issues regarding the naming
of distribution lists for local-only, one-node, and networked-peer lists.
 
1.  Presently a limit of 8 characters exists.  I am studying a way to get
    around this limit.  It would involve making LISTSERV act as a gateway
    to a psuedo mail-only node (a new node name) within which it would
    have total freedom to assign any userid acceptable to RFC822 it wants.
 
2.  Names might conflict with existing userids.  At sites that allow
    mnemonic userids, it is very possible for a simple name to have already
    been thought up and be in use for something similar to the list topic.
    The solution of number 1 could help here.
 
3.  Names choices might be limited to bureaucratic policies at the site
    where a LISTSERV is running, making for account-style coded names
    and numbers for lists, with no obvious relationship between them and
    the topic itself.  The solution of number 1 could help here.
    (All accountants and accounting textbooks should be burned)
 
4.  Naming schemes like prefixes and suffixed help avoid conflicts and
    make names standardized, but end up reducing further the number of
    available characters to use.
 
5.  ARPA mailing lists and digests usually have very meaningful names
    that should really be passed on where possible.