FW: samba-ntdom needed any more?

[Craig Kelley]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, James Nord wrote:

> Gerald Carter wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:24:09 Elliot Mackenzie wrote:
> >
> >> The NT domain feature is a very important (still relatively new)
> >> feature that a lot of people (including myself) have at one
> >> stage experienced problems with.  The fact that we get up
> >> to 30 emails a day through this mailing list seems to
> >> suggest that there are sufficient people who use this
> >> list to make it worthwhile.  I would personally find it
> >> more irritating having to double or triple my mail traffic
> >> each day just to receive the same emails I do currently (I am
> >> not a part of samba-main).
> >
> >
> > I don;t think anyone is implying that the Domain feature
> > is not important.  I just don't want to be answering identical
> > questions on Samba and samba-ntdom.
>
> Then what about subscribing samba at samba.org to samba-ntdom for a
> transitional period.
>
> - Okay this could end up with some people getting 2 of the same emails
> but as we are talking Samba/Unix'ish I'm guessing that most people have
> the abiltiy to do some mailbox filtering to get rid of the duplicates.
>
> In my view this
>
> > This list should be for testing new features in Samba related to
> > NT domains.  Samba-techical should remain for coordinating
> > development.
>
> I would agree with that and it is how I have actually seen it in the past.

What about changing the samba-ntdom list to samba-testing?  It's purpose
would then be more clear, and we wouldn't have confusion over which list
to post questions on.  The general 'samba' list gets a LOT of traffic, and
I don't really want to subscribe to it in order to take part in secondary
development of Samba.

-- 
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley  -- kellcrai at isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger ink at inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block