On 10/30/07, William B. Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/30/07, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/30/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 30-Oct-2007, at 12:55, Andy Davidson wrote: > > >
> > I'm trying to understand your point here - you believe that it will be > a more free-for-all as a separate list than it is on the nanog list? > I would think that separating it out would provide some relief from > the nanog msg volume issue that has long been an issue for the general > community. Why wouldn't divide and conquer work here ? What would work is for people to post on topic so that the list is interesting and relevant. -M<
