>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