From owner-freebsd-current Tue Nov 17 12:58:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12127 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:58:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from detlev.UUCP (50.camalott.com [208.203.140.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA12113 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:58:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from joelh@gnu.org) Received: (from joelh@localhost) by detlev.UUCP (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA04580; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:57:31 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from joelh) To: Open Systems Networking Cc: Bryan Fullerton , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: proc changes References: From: Joel Ray Holveck Date: 17 Nov 1998 14:57:30 -0600 In-Reply-To: Open Systems Networking's message of "Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:50:10 -0500 (EST)" Message-ID: <86ogq6yr45.fsf@detlev.UUCP> Lines: 19 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> Okay, what do you think of having lists with *only* heads-up info for >> -current and -stable, with easily accessible archives? > Personally I dont think anyone will read them. They dont seem to read the > *HEADS-UP* messages on current and another list that isnt read is just a > waste of time IMO.Well just have to keep chuggin with what we have and > answer the occasional storm of repeated *me too* problems. I am much more likely to read more of a low-bandwidth list with only messages I know are relevant than a high-bandwidth list with lots of discussion which may or may not apply to what I'm doing. Happy hacking, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message