Xref: utzoo news.groups:22819 alt.fax:826 comp.misc:9742
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!NUTMEG.Enet.DEC.com!rothstein
From: rothstein@NUTMEG.Enet.DEC.com (Lee Rothstein, 603-884-0039)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.fax,comp.misc
Subject: Re: never mind:  comp.dcom.fax
Summary: Discussion of computer fax and plain fax each benefit
         from the discussion of the other in the same stream.
Keywords: computer fax
Message-ID: <14253@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 6 Aug 90 00:23:34 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: DEC, TTB1-2/F05, Ten Tara Boulevard, Nashua, NH  03062
Lines: 30

In article <e947m2w162w@halcyon.wa.com>, ralphs@halcyon.wa.com
(Ralph Sims) writes...

>eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) writes:

>>due to an absolutely underwhelming response to the call for
>>discussion for comp.dcom.fax, i'm not going to issue a call for
>>votes.

>'tis a shame.  I thought it was an inspired idea.  I haven't
>seen any discussion in alt.fax, however, so I wonder if your
>messages got propogated.

I had assumed from Steve's earlier comments that comp.dcom.fax
was to remove the computer fax issues, only, from alt.fax.  I am
not in favor of that.

Discussion of computer fax and plain fax each benefit from the
discussion of the other in the same stream.

Now if the alt.fax traffic doubles or triples in size, then
separating out the components may be worthwhile.

Until then, this is one man's facsimile of an opinion ...

+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Lee Rothstein * UUCP: {purdue,ucbvax,hplabs,labrea,sun, |
|  pyramid,gryphon,angelo}!decwrl!nutmeg.dec.com!rothstein|
|   * Arpa/Domain Address: rothstein@nutmeg.enet.dec.com  |
+---------------------------------------------------------+