From owner-freebsd-chat  Mon May 12 04:49:08 1997
Return-Path: <owner-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA14735
          for chat-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 1997 04:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA14730
          for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 12 May 1997 04:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id EAA03446; Mon, 12 May 1997 04:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk>
cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Reply-to addresses 
In-reply-to: Your message of "12 May 1997 09:43:32 BST."
             <57g1vt2i8a.fsf@tees.elsevier.co.uk> 
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 04:48:34 -0700
Message-ID: <3442.863437714@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Even for hackers and current they are disparate lists, I'm only on
> -current, some are only on hackers, there are occasionally discussions
> that should involve both sets of  users. I agree this is a rare
> situation but I'm uncertain about disabling the ability to send to
> multiple lists.

I've seen it so much more often abused than used sensibly that I *am*
certain - kill it!  kill it!  death to cross-posting! :-)

						Jordan