From mike@boobaz.net Mon Dec 30 11:32:10 2002
Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.132])
	by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.12) with ESMTP id gBUJWACK031982
	for <linux@reallists.u.washington.edu>; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:32:10 -0800
Received: from boobaz.net (12-228-56-158.client.attbi.com [12.228.56.158])
	by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.12) with ESMTP id gBUJW7wR029894
	for <linux@u.washington.edu>; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:32:08 -0800
Received: from 12-228-56-158.client.attbi.com (12-228-56-158.client.attbi.com [12.228.56.158])
	by boobaz.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBUJW7L23064
	for <linux@u.washington.edu>; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:32:07 -0800
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:32:07 -0800 (PST)
From: "M. Hornung" <mike@boobaz.net>
X-X-Sender: mike@localhost.localdomain
To: LUG <linux@u.washington.edu>
Subject: list archive updates
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0212301127180.22938-100000@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hiya.  I'm planning to do some New Year updating to my linux@u archive
(more useful format, software update, general cleanup, etc).  It's been
brought to my attention that some people might like it if email addresses
of subscribers were obscured in the archive.  How do people feel about
that?  I'll go with the consensus.

http://staff.washington.edu/hornung/linux/archive/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  -=<(| mike@boobaz.net |)>=-          http://www.boobaz.net/key.html
           81CE 668E BC9D EDFE 08ED  D8D7 84A7 4F32 54C2 68F8


.