Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site packet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!packet!cfv
From: cfv@packet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: VMS news group...
Message-ID: <293@packet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 3-Jul-83 16:07:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: packet.293
Posted: Sun Jul  3 16:07:29 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jul-83 15:31:38 EDT
References: <110@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: PacketCable,Inc. Cupertino, CA.
Lines: 13

The question is: can we use fa.info-vax, or should we separate the usenet
traffic into a net. topic the way we do with others such as sf-lovers? With
the lack of reliability on the arpanet side of things since the cutover, I
would tend to vote for something like net.ifo-vax with the fa-material being
sent in through it when it comes through (expecially since fa.info-vax isn't
digestified).


-- 
>From the dungeons of the Warlock:
					      Chuck Von Rospach
					      ucbvax!amd70!packet!cfv
					      (chuqui@mit-mc)  <- obsolete!