Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:1956 news.groups:2112
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!ptsfa!pbphb!pb2esac!pttesac!vanam
From: vanam@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,news.groups
Subject: Re: Dividing comp.sys.att
Message-ID: <654@pttesac.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jan 88 22:33:39 GMT
References: <167@mcmi.UUCP> <16915@gatech.edu> <3551@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> <2260@cp1.BELL-ATL.COM>
Reply-To: vanam@pttesac.UUCP (-Root Admin-)
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, San Francisco, Ca.
Lines: 29

In article <2260@cp1.BELL-ATL.COM> hart@cp1.BELL-ATL.COM (Rod Hart) writes:
>In article <3551@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU>, ir1@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ir1) writes:
>> As someone who has a bunch of 6300's but not 3B1's or 2's, I would
>> love to see a group devoted only to 6300. I find now much more of
>> 
>Why complicate things. Some of us own both 6300's and 7300's. If we
>aren't careful we will wind up with separate groups for 7300's and
>3b1's. A little moderation and self control is in order.

I'm for splitting.  I am using a kill file now to filter out "6300",
but not everyone puts "6300" in their Subject line, even if the
subject has to do only with 6300.  I also subscribe to unix-pc.*,
but apparently not every has access to that news group.  (I think
unix-pc.* is meant more for 3B1's that are running netnews,
but not all 3B1's or 7300's have the capacity to run netnews)

It just seems to me that those who own 6300's *and* 7300's
should subscribe to two news groups.  Most people only own
one or the other.  I think that comp.sys.att should perhaps
be for the 3B5/3B15/3B20 computers which all seem to have a
lot in common.  You might also throw in 3B2's and 3B4000's.

It seems hard enough to split the newsgroup.  I doubt that anyone
will try (or succeed) at going so ridiculously far as to split
the UNIX-PC into a 7300 group and a 3B1 group.

Well that was my 2 cents worth.

Marnix
----