>Ken suggested I bring this topic up on the list so we could all discuss it. > >Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com> (Ken) writes: > > [ From the RFD ] >Ken> Although average traffic in November was only 7 messages per day, there >Ken> were numerous days with 30-40 messages. The only reasonable way to deal >Ken> with this traffic for many people, is the creation of a related newsgroup, >Ken> rec.sport.unicycling. > >Seth Golub <seth@hilco.com> (SG) wrote: > >SG> People may point out the option of a mailing list digest, which I think is >SG> a valid alternative. The traffic could be reduced to one message per day >SG> for those people subscribing to the digested version. > >Ken> I’ve never subscribed to a digested format of a mailing list, but have >Ken> come across digests of the nihongo mailing list in the sci.lang.japan >Ken> newsgroup. I could never tell what various subjects the digests contain. > >I’m sure it’s possible to have the digest make a table of contents. >i.e. have a list at the top of all the subject lines of the messages in the > digest. > >For those of you just joining this in-progress conversation: > >I’ve never subscribed to a mailing list in the digest format, so I’m a little >fuzzy on the details. The way I understand it, a mailing list digest is a >single piece of mail which contains all the mail that went through the mailing >list that day. It’s useful for mailing lists which get a lot of traffic. > >Some people might subscribe to the list as a digest and receive at most, one >piece of mail per day from the list. This would not affect their ability to >send mail to the list. Not everyone would have to use the digest. Some people >could use the digest while others continued as we are now.
That is correct - I read roots-l, a genealogy mailing list thru vm1.nodak.edu,
that way. That is massively active, and for me an digest was the only way to
deal with it. There is a table of contents (or list of subject lines, however
you want to look at it) at the top, and then the messages one after another,
with ------- lines separating each article.
I would suggest that in the digest mode, even in the slow days, it is set up so
that people get one message that day, so that you don’t go 2 or 3 days without
any messages and then find that people have been discussing something of
interest to you and you didn’t know.
Of course, introducing this (which is a good idea in my mind), introduces
another option for techno-neophytes who might run into problems, ie. sending
commands to the mailing list and not the listserver. Perhaps a weekly posting of
how to use the system (once it’s in place) wouldn’t be a bad idea (as long as it
isn’t overly long, for those who pay for connect charges).
Ken> Although average traffic in November was only 7 messages per day, there
Ken> were numerous days with 30-40 messages. The only reasonable way to deal
Ken> with this traffic for many people, is the creation of a related newsgroup,
Ken> rec.sport.unicycling.
SG> People may point out the option of a mailing list digest, which I think is a
SG> valid alternative. The traffic could be reduced to one message per day for
SG> those people subscribing to the digested version.
SG> Since this will be brought up by opponents, it needs to be discussed. We may
SG> find that it’s a better solution than a newsgroup, in which case we go with
SG> it, or else (assuming we are rational people) we’ll have valid reasons why a
SG> digest is not an acceptable solution, in which case those reasons should be
SG> summarized and stated somewhere appropriate.
I’d be quite happy to subscribe to a digest version of the mailing list. I’m
already subscribed to a couple of other digests, and they seem to work fine.
Instead of dozens of individual e-mails a day, you just get one. It’s true that
you can’t tell all the subjects in it from the header, but as soon as you open
it up it has a contents list. As far as I can tell, this is compiled
automatically. I’m also subscribed to about 3 lists without a digest form and
it’s a pain in the neck. I get over a hundred messages a day, and sorting
through them is a real hassle, especially when I’m just checking for any
personal urgent messages.
I’m not saying a digest would be better than a newsgroup, just better than the
present system. At least it’s a convenient option, that could let others less
keen keep the current system. I don’t know what advantages a newsgroup would
have, but I’d like to find out. I suppose it would be more easily found, and
therefore more widely subscribed to. Although popularity can have its drawbacks
too. Any comments?
|> widely subscribed to. Although popularity can have its drawbacks too. Any |> comments?
I see all these discussions of mailing lists vs newsgroups etc., and I think
some people might have some misconceptions about a few things.
There’s no technical reason why you can’t have “it all”. Let’s say that some
want a newsgroup and some want a digest-type mailing list and some want a
message-basis mailing list. No reason why you can’t have them all.
Good mailing-list software will allow each users (subscriber) to set dynamically
how they want to receive messages… as they come in, every hour, every day,
every day unless the load is heavey in which case more often, blah blah blah.
If there’s a newsgroup, there’s no reason that people that prefer the
mailinglist method need to abandon it… messages that get mailed to the list
get mirrored in the group and vice-versa.
In fact, for all any of us know, these messages are already being mirrored to
alt.sex.uni
I’m on one mailing list (a life-in-japan one) where each user decided if they
want to have newsgroup messages (from fj.life.in-japan) sent to them or not. If
not, they only see messages originating as mailing-list messages. You can send
special control messages to change the way you want to do business with the
interface, and you can also fetch profiles on the members of the mailing list
(for those that have written them). It’s all very slick.
There are, of course, non-technical differences between the various options. A
digest might come with a subject line “unicycling digest
1/2/95” and have included in it all the messages. Well, some users will want
to reply to a particular message and if done without thinking, can result
in a subject of “Re: unicycling digest 1/2/95” which is undesirable. (Some
mail readers allow a digest message to be locally exploded into its
component messages)
JF> I see all these discussions of mailing lists vs newsgroups etc., and I think
JF> some people might have some misconceptions about a few things.
JF> There’s no technical reason why you can’t have “it all”.
No, but there is a political reason.
If the main argument for a newsgroup is that the traffic is sometimes “too
high” (though still very low by newsgroup-wannabe standards), people will
point out that we don’t need a newsgroup, we just need a digest option on our
mailing list.
We can’t have a newsgroup (and therefore can’t have “it all”) unless we disprove
that. Of course, if we can’t disprove that, we obviously don’t need a newsgroup.
|> JF> There’s no technical reason why you can’t have “it all”. |> |> No, but there is a political reason. |> |> If the main argument for a newsgroup is that the traffic is sometimes "too |> high" (though still very low by newsgroup-wannabe standards), people will |> point out that we don’t need a newsgroup, we just need a digest option on our |> mailing list. |> |> We can’t have a newsgroup (and therefore can’t have “it all”) unless we |> disprove that. Of course, if we can’t disprove that, we obviously don’t need |> a newsgroup.
I appologize if this is naive, but I don’t see a newsgroup as being simply
the next step after a mailing list gets too large. They’re fundamentally
different things. Look at news.announce.newusers … certainly don’t get
much traffic there.
If you want a wide, public presence where you wish to garner sporatic and
anonymous participation, you get a newsgroup. If you want a controlled personal
discussion group, use a mailing list.
(general argument is as follows:)
I think going to a newsgroup simply because a mailing list is getting large is a
rude and selfish. When a newsgroup is created, it “forces” (a very loose use of
the word) the group on a lot of people… sites that carry the general tree
will suddenly start to carry the new group. That will cost people money. Why
should they do it? As a service to their users. But how do you think they’ll
feel if they find out that you’re only doing it because you can’t handle the
administration of a mailing list?
You have to realize that going to a newsgroup is something you do for others,
not for yourself. And specifically, you’ll lose a lot of control that you now
take for granted. There well may be lots of people that would like to take part
in uni-related discussions but don’t know how or where. (that this mailing list
exists is not common knowledge… heck, the president or whatnot of the IUF [at
the time, Jack Halpern] didn’t know about it until I told him).
Suddenly finding rec.unicycle (or whatever) will open it up to them. You might
find that the sudden influx of participation is good, or you might start to feel
crowded out. Or maybe there just won’t be any. Any of these might be the price
you pay for opening up to the outside world. If you feel its worth it, then do
so. Otherwise, don’t.
*jeffrey*
Jeffrey E.F. Friedl <jfriedl@omron.co.jp> Omron Corporation, Kyoto Japan
>Jeffrey Friedl <jfriedl@nff.ncl.omron.co.jp> (JF) writes: > >JF> I see all these discussions of mailing lists vs newsgroups etc., and I >JF> think some people might have some misconceptions about a few things. > >JF> There’s no technical reason why you can’t have “it all”. >
Seth Golub wrote:
>No, but there is a political reason. > >If the main argument for a newsgroup is that the traffic is sometimes "too >high" (though still very low by newsgroup-wannabe standards), people will >point out that we don’t need a newsgroup, we just need a digest option on our >mailing list. > >We can’t have a newsgroup (and therefore can’t have “it all”) unless we >disprove that. Of course, if we can’t disprove that, we obviously don’t need a >newsgroup.
This is fine reasoning. However, as I understand it, there are no fixed volume
numbers required to get a rec newsgroup. We simply need to go through the RFD
and CFV process and pass it (within the spirit of USENET). We must be persuasive
to pass the rec.sport.unicycling newsgroup. We must provide good answers to all
criticisms of our RFD.
However, just because our mailing volume is way below the recommended value for
becoming a newsgroup, doesn’t mean we should give up. The content of our mailing
list and the extraordinary activity that unicycling is makes
rec.sport.unicycling an excellent addition to USENET.
Daily volume is just one small aspect of a new group proposal. We just need to
show that the other positive aspects out weight daily volume, convincing enough
people to vote yes!
Again, Seth makes a very important, maybe even critical point. We should have
our answer(s) to it prepared before we submit the official RFD.
