Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!pdn!gumby!dixon
From: dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon(0000))
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Vote for comp.dcom.brouters
Message-ID: <6937@pdn.paradyne.com>
Date: 15 Jan 90 15:04:38 GMT
References: <1263.25b1dee3@csc.anu.oz> <7400@chaph.usc.edu>
Sender: usenet@pdn.paradyne.com
Reply-To: dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon)
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Lines: 21

In article <7400@chaph.usc.edu> tli@phakt.usc.edu (Tony Li) writes:
>Unfortunately it's not general enough.  As you probably know, there's
>already a lot of different hardware in use: terminal servers, IP
>routers, DECnet routers, CSU/DSUs, etc.  Perhaps a better solution is
>comp.dcom.mans? 
           ^^^^
Whats a man?

>Tony Li - USC Computer Science Department

You are probably right.  We could use a group to pull the connectivity
hardware out of comp.dcom.lans and other groups.  

I would think that comp.dcom.hardware is too general, since we want to
limit the scope to LAN hardware.  Is comp.dcom.lans.hardware too long?
And if comp.*.novell gets approved, then whats left for comp.dcom.lans?


Tom Dixon 
AT&T Paradyne, Largo, FL
dixon@pdn.paradyne.com