Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!UCLA-CCN.ARPA!CSDCTGB
From: CSDCTGB@UCLA-CCN.ARPA (Todd Booth 213-825-1933)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Protocol of Submissions
Message-ID: <8610100652.AA24495@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 7-Oct-86 11:40:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8610100652.AA24495
Posted: Tue Oct  7 11:40:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Oct-86 07:51:09 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 41
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

It's time to settle this "commercial vs university" issue.

> From: mckee@mitre.ARPA
>
> I object to moving the discussion of commercial vs university
> requirements off of tcp-ip.

Then you may wish to send a message to the coordinator of the Digest
who intended this digest for the following purpose:

"To announce new and expanded services in a timely manner.",

according to their advertising in SRI-NIC Netinfo:Interest-Groups-2.txt

> The tcp-ip community needs to at least understand, and hopefully
> accomodate, the contending views of public and private
> organizations.

You may be right, but if the main-stream of the group doesn't
want to hear about, so be it.  The digest wasn't intended to
act as a big brother.

If you are so interested in this topic, you should be *happy*
to start your own digest.   (I've set up PC-Token-Ring Digest
and can give you a hand.)  You may get some interest on your
topic regarding products other than tcp-ip.

> The discussion should continue on tcp-ip.
> H. Craig McKee

The next message on "commercial vs university" should be from a
volunteer to help with the digest.  (If anyone really cares so
much that they would help.)

Of course, the TCP-IP coordinator can overrule me if I have mis-
interpreted the protocol discussion.

-todd / UCLA Data Comm

ps. CASE CLOSED