Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(February 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: fresh horror from AOL
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC @ VM . SE . LSOFT . COM>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 01:02:58 +0100
To: List Managers <list-managers @ GreatCircle . com>
In-reply-to: Message of Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:54:44 -0500 from Brad Knowles <brad@his.com>

On Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:54:44 -0500 Brad Knowles <brad@his.com> said:

>        1000 or 1500 might be fine for  now, but I guarantee you that it
>wouldn't  last --  probably  a month  or two,  then  people would  start
>subscribing to  even more  high-traffic lists  (because now  the problem
>doesn't happen any more) and then we're right back where we were.

No because there's a limit to how  much e-mail people are willing to read
per day.  I'm not saying it  wouldn't go past  1000 or 1500, but  at some
point it would very definitely stop expanding.

>        If  more  people  subscribed  to digests  for  everything,  this
>problem would be virtually non-existant.

Yeah but digests are so much trouble  that I wouldn't even dream of this.
There are just too many people with  accounts at ISPs that can't handle a
HUGE 50k  digest. Sometimes  they dump  the whole  message on  the floor,
sometimes they cut it in the middle. The users expect you to know why and
be able to fix  it. Sure, you can lower the digest size  to 10k, but then
people who have a real e-mail account  complain that they want to get 1-2
digests per day, not 10. Or you  can make the digest size configurable at
a significant  resource cost,  and you're left  with clueless  people who
don't know how to reduce or increase the default value, as the case might
be (there is no direct relationship  between the cluelessness of the user
and that of the ISP).

Personally I'd  rather get 1000  bounces a day as  a result of  not using
digest by default  than 20 complaints a day about  missing digests. I can
program  my computer  to take  care of  the bounces,  in fact  I now  use
probing on most of the lists I run and I don't see any bounce, and in the
next  version of  LISTSERV transparent  probing will  be the  default and
everything will happen under the hood  where it belongs, you'll just need
a  bit more  horsepower than  when you  do all  the processing  manually.
Between that  and the  major players  (like AOL) moving  to DSN,  I think
bounces will  soon be a  problem of the past.  But when people  ask about
their digest,  I can't  have the  computer answer for  me, not  today and
probably not  in 10 years  either. So,  on the lists  I run, I  make sure
digest is not  the default option so  that it is only used  by people who
will know how to turn it off.

  Eric


Follow-Ups:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Educating large masses of users (was: Re: fresh horrorfrom AOL)
From: Brad Knowles <brad@his.com>
Next: Entrepreneur looking for mailing list / website developer in the SF Bay area
From: "Brian Axe" <brianaxe@hotmail.com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: fresh horror from AOL
From: Brad Knowles <brad@his.com>
Next: Re: fresh horror from AOL
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com