Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!tektronix!reed!kamath From: kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,news.groups Subject: Re: APPLE2-L Message-ID: <7657@reed.UUCP> Date: Fri, 6-Nov-87 18:18:12 EST Article-I.D.: reed.7657 Posted: Fri Nov 6 18:18:12 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 20:39:50 EST References: <8710061747.aa16857@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> <1802@killer.UUCP> <369@altura.srcsip.UUCP> <1879@dasys1.UUCP> Reply-To: kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) Organization: Reed College, Portland OR Lines: 27 Xref: mnetor comp.sys.apple:3212 news.groups:1905 In article <1879@dasys1.UUCP> patth@dasys1.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: >Hmmm, > I wonder if we should *ask* everyone to vote on this issue; maybe >we can discuss the pros and cons of a comp.binaries.apple2 group >to replace LISTSERV@BROWNVM.BITNET. > > What happens to BITNET people if comp.binaries.apple2 replaces >the LISTSERV? Would they be unable to get the files? Would >*everyone* have access to a comp.binaries.apple2 group? >-- >Patt Haring UUCP: ..cmcl2!phri!dasys1!patth What we really ought to do is form comp.sys.binaries.apple or whatever, and use listserv for *archives*, just like they do with UNIX archives in comp.sources.unix etc. The binaries *should* be moderated, to prevent a mass of them, and also to manage the archives. Of course, if we made listserv the archive, that wouldn't be too much use for us on UUCP, as we wouldn't be able to get archives. Sean Kamath -- UUCP: {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs ihnp4}!tektronix!reed!kamath CSNET: reed!kamath@Tektronix.CSNET || BITNET: reed!kamath@Berkeley.BITNET ARPA: tektronix!reed!kamath@Berkeley reed!kamath@hplabs US Snail: 3934 SE Boise, Portland, OR 97202 (I hate 4 line .sigs!)