At 01:59 PM 3/10/97 -0500, Bonnie wrote:
>
>Just FYI, there is a list where you can discuss Juno to your heart's content:
>
>juno_accmail-digest@world.std.com
>
>I believe it's a majordomo list; there is also of course a non-digest version,
>but it's a pretty active list.
Yes, it is a Majordomo. I'd categorize it as a medium output list.
>Chuq's note has already been posted there, no real backlash yet, but a
>bit of disappointment (is how I'd characterize the reaction). I think the
>list has either some Juno employees on it or else people who know their
>addresses. It's mainly their users, though, discussing everything from
>the message size restrictions, loss of the 800 number, and bugs.
Tsk, tsk. I betcha Chuq's ears were burning. You shoulda heard
the nasty things they said about him on the Juno_accamil List.
Ole Chuq even tried to post to the List, but I hear that mean
list owner don't allow no one to post to his list, lest 'n they
be subscribers. Ole Chuq just wasted bandwith and caused a bounce
to be had.
>About the limit:
>We keep our digests shorter for both our Juno subscribers (about 2.5% of
>our subscribers)...
Thank you. It's list owners like yourself that give the Internet
a good name.
>...and also Prodigy Classic members, who can receive larger messages, but
>after about 31K, the messages get converted into awkward "attachments" that
>must be downloaded. (If they use EMC, things are simplified, and the serious
>e-mailers do.) This does result in about four digests a day for
>our more active lists. I hope that will eventually regulate their volume and
>increase the signal-to-noise ratio for those over-active lists (maybe five
>out of our 150 lists).
The point I hope you are making, is that a list owner should never
be so rigid as to not bend to the needs of their subscribers -- all
of them without selective discrimination.
Frankly, any list owner that goes nuts over a few bounces, should
not be in the business. Bounces should be treated as puzzles, not
daemons...er...demons.
Alan
ASHandRR@TGN.net
|
|