Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!cmcl2!yale!eagle!flinton
From: flinton@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: <None>
Message-ID: <3924@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 89 14:44:33 GMT
References: <1360@sagepub.UUCP> <1810004@hpiag0.IAG.HP.COM> <1989Nov17.014854.23205@terminator.cc.umich.edu> <5266@yunexus.UUCP> <2172@prune.bbn.com> <5299@yunexus.UUCP>
Lines: 15

In article <5299@yunexus.UUCP>, davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) 
writes:
>
>   Ok, we can either 
> 	0) leave it lie,
> 	1) change the rules to make it easier,
> 	2) get someone else to do the work (well, most of it).
> 
>   I really don't like 0: if it were a conscious policy, it would be a policy
> of exclusivity.  As it is, it merely has the effect of one!  Therefor I'd
> vote for 3, with 2 iff the domain were time-limited.
> 
Sorry, what was option 3 again? -- our feed's line-eater must have gobbled it
up (-: .
		--Fred [E.J. Linton, Math. Dept., Wesleyan Univ., 06457]