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!