Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:11062 unix-pc.general:6721
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!swbatl!dwn
From: dwn@swbatl.sbc.com (David Neill-OKCy Mktg 405-278-4007)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: oh geez, is it .att.3b1 or .3b1
Message-ID: <1990Dec4.133943.327@swbatl.sbc.com>
Date: 4 Dec 90 13:39:43 GMT
References: <76015@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Southwestern Bell Advanced Technology Laboratory
Lines: 34

In article <76015@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes:
>
>Well, the last poster tied it up - my summary (see previous post) says 4
>specifically want comp.sys.3b1 and four specifically comp.sys.att.3b1
>(with 6 more who did not care.)
>
>How about a mini-vote, just on the NAME, with the two choices being
>
>comp.sys.3b1
>
>			and
>
>comp.sys.att.3b1
>
ok, I mini-vote for 

comp.sys.3b1
and
comp.sources.3b1

I would have no problem with the "s4" designation mentioned
earlier, ie:

comp.sys.s4
and
comp.sources.s4

I mini-vote no for any *.att.* combination, but if that's the
consensus, I'll real-vote to support it.

-- 
name & address   (this account) -> uunet!swbatl!dwn OR dwn@swbatl.sbc.com
David Neill       office -> 405-291-1990 -> uunet!swbatl!oktext!mktco
Mgr - Mktg.(SWBTCo) home -> 405-843-4464 -> uunet!swbatl!oktext!frodo!david