You can get the mailers to use non-HMTL. I subscribe to a number of mailing lists in digest form. Two I can think of that are best for me because of the volume are: beowulf and lustre . Both at 7-bit ASCII, nothing fancy. I read them both with traditional tools as well as browser based tools -> my choice.
And I very much prefer digests - for the reasons Bob mentioned - it's just easier to manage, particularly for high volume like this one.
Clem Cole
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
On 2012-12-17 20:51, Bob Armstrong wrote:
That capability is not something I've ever seen in the digests I've tested
on various sites.
It sends the digest in html with the messages sorted by subject and a
table of contents at the top. Just scan the list of topics and click on any
that you're interested in (conversely, don't click on any that you aren't!).
Likewise, the web archive displays a tree view of messages by thread.
Well, that fails it for me then. I hate html formatted mail even more...
Johnny
On 2012-12-17 20:51, Bob Armstrong wrote:
That capability is not something I've ever seen in the digests I've tested
on various sites.
It sends the digest in html with the messages sorted by subject and a
table of contents at the top. Just scan the list of topics and click on any
that you're interested in (conversely, don't click on any that you aren't!).
Likewise, the web archive displays a tree view of messages by thread.
Well, that fails it for me then. I hate html formatted mail even more...
Johnny
That capability is not something I've ever seen in the digests I've tested
on various sites.
It sends the digest in html with the messages sorted by subject and a
table of contents at the top. Just scan the list of topics and click on any
that you're interested in (conversely, don't click on any that you aren't!).
Likewise, the web archive displays a tree view of messages by thread.
Bob
On 2012-12-17 20:43, Bob Armstrong wrote:
more interested in seeing why people want digest mode (as I said, I am
having
difficulty in seeing the attraction it clearly has for some)
Among other things, digests are sorted by topic. When a particular chain
of conversation strays far from anything I'm interested in, it's easy to
simply skip it. An alternative, which I use now but find less attractive,
is to create rules that redirect certain HECnet subjects to the trash.
That capability is not something I've ever seen in the digests I've tested on various sites. Does it send a separate digest per topic then?
Johnny
more interested in seeing why people want digest mode (as I said, I am
having
difficulty in seeing the attraction it clearly has for some)
Among other things, digests are sorted by topic. When a particular chain
of conversation strays far from anything I'm interested in, it's easy to
simply skip it. An alternative, which I use now but find less attractive,
is to create rules that redirect certain HECnet subjects to the trash.
Bob
BTW, this is what we are talking about:
http://rhesus.sampsa.com/cgi-bin/hecnetinfo/hecnetinfo.com
It's not all THAT interesting to even random people on the wider Internet...
sampsa
On 17 Dec 2012, at 21:41, sampsa at mac.com wrote:
OK, I'll make it opt-in - if there's an INFO.TXT in the public FAL dir, I'll run the NCP commands, otherwise I'll show nothing.
Is that OK with you?
sampsa
On 17 Dec 2012, at 21:33, Peter Coghlan <HECNET at beyondthepale.ie> wrote:
With this in mind, I'm considering adding an opt-out system for the HECnet
info system on RHESUS, maybe a NOINFO.TXT file in the public FAL directory
and it won't run the NCP SHOW EXECs?
Or is everyone OK with what RHESUS is doing now?
That kind of depends on what exactly RHESUS is doing now.
I'm quite happy for anyone on HECnet to send commands to my NML servers or
to make information from my systems available to others on HECnet. However
I am nervous of making this information available to anyone who wants it on
the wider internet, particularly if it is a spur of the moment kind of thing
which is changing by the hour without much thought being given to the
implications.
I don't think opt-out is a good way to go. People who have not carefully combed
through the 80 plus mails to the mailing list today will not realise that they
are being required to opt out from something that they did not know they were
opting in to.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
OK, I'll make it opt-in - if there's an INFO.TXT in the public FAL dir, I'll run the NCP commands, otherwise I'll show nothing.
Is that OK with you?
sampsa
On 17 Dec 2012, at 21:33, Peter Coghlan <HECNET at beyondthepale.ie> wrote:
With this in mind, I'm considering adding an opt-out system for the HECnet
info system on RHESUS, maybe a NOINFO.TXT file in the public FAL directory
and it won't run the NCP SHOW EXECs?
Or is everyone OK with what RHESUS is doing now?
That kind of depends on what exactly RHESUS is doing now.
I'm quite happy for anyone on HECnet to send commands to my NML servers or
to make information from my systems available to others on HECnet. However
I am nervous of making this information available to anyone who wants it on
the wider internet, particularly if it is a spur of the moment kind of thing
which is changing by the hour without much thought being given to the
implications.
I don't think opt-out is a good way to go. People who have not carefully combed
through the 80 plus mails to the mailing list today will not realise that they
are being required to opt out from something that they did not know they were
opting in to.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
With this in mind, I'm considering adding an opt-out system for the HECnet
info system on RHESUS, maybe a NOINFO.TXT file in the public FAL directory
and it won't run the NCP SHOW EXECs?
Or is everyone OK with what RHESUS is doing now?
That kind of depends on what exactly RHESUS is doing now.
I'm quite happy for anyone on HECnet to send commands to my NML servers or
to make information from my systems available to others on HECnet. However
I am nervous of making this information available to anyone who wants it on
the wider internet, particularly if it is a spur of the moment kind of thing
which is changing by the hour without much thought being given to the
implications.
I don't think opt-out is a good way to go. People who have not carefully combed
through the 80 plus mails to the mailing list today will not realise that they
are being required to opt out from something that they did not know they were
opting in to.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
If we could agree to keep things more on topic and to put more thought
into
it before banging off a quick message to the list, I wonder would that
reduce
the need for a digest mode?
No.
Fair enough.
And it's far easier to implement digest than get users to behave.
If there is a problem with the way people are behaving, I think it is better
to try to encourage and reward better behaviour than to try to accomodate it.
Digest is less desirable if you are active on the list and can do it
often. When there are high
volumes of traffic you only want to read, digest becomes more desirable.
Also fair enough.
However, if the list becomes a high volume discussion of anything and
everything, I will be unsubscribing and those that want that can continue on.
You can still get individual msgs if you want them. Why take the option
away from someone else?
I spent a bit of time composing my posting and I thought I carefully avoided
giving the impression that I wanted to take away any option from anyone. I'm
more interested in seeing why people want digest mode (as I said, I am having
difficulty in seeing the attraction it clearly has for some) and whether we
are trying to solve a problem that will still be there after a digest mode is
made available.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
