Re: [foxboro] Utility submissions re-visited.

  • From:
  • To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:33:42 -0400

At 11:03 AM 10/12/01 -0500, David Johnson wrote:
>This is in reference to Cassandra Submissions, etc.
>I think that I must take the blame for Cassandra submissions not being 
>handled well.  Although they ultimately need to go to Duc for posting, 
>that's not really what I had in mind when I envisioned this project.

<... description of much work involved snipped ...>

In that case, do you think another list, something like foxboro-workers, is
needed? I would think it's better to segregate the traffic so as not to
overwhelm the casual list subscribers, and it will help to remain on-topic.

I have no problem maintaining two lists, but if there is anyone who wants to
share in the fun, talk to me, off-list.


This message has been checked for all known viruses by the 
MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit

This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by The Foxboro Company.
Use the information obtained here at your own risk. For disclaimer,

list info:
subscribe:   mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Other related posts:

  • » Re: [foxboro] Utility submissions re-visited.