home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Light ROM 4
/
Light ROM 4 - Disc 1.iso
/
text
/
maillist
/
1994
/
oct94.doc
/
000369_owner-lightwave-l _Fri Oct 21 17:19:32 1994.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1995-03-23
|
4KB
Return-Path: <owner-lightwave-l>
Received: by mail3.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom)
id LAA12506; Fri, 21 Oct 1994 11:58:02 -0700
Received: from yang.cpac.washington.edu by mail3.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom)
id LAA12424; Fri, 21 Oct 1994 11:57:41 -0700
Received: from gtisqr.UUCP by yang.cpac.washington.edu
(8.6.9/internet->uucp gateway 2.4.2) id MAA12462; Fri, 21 Oct 1994 12:01:29 -0700
Received: by hindmost.mav.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.3)
id <m0qyOxo-0000feC@hindmost.mav.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 94 11:45 PDT
Received: by mav.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.20.1 #20.1)
id <m0qyOyY-00023FC@mav.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 94 11:46 PDT
Message-Id: <m0qyOyY-00023FC@mav.com>
From: kevin@mav.com (Kevin Bagley)
Subject: Re: subscribe & Noise
To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 11:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <01HIICY5PKXU005I3Y@UWSTOUT.EDU> from "ED JAKOBER" at Oct 20, 94 06:55:21 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2466
Sender: owner-lightwave-l@netcom.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
>
>
> Kevin Bagley said
> -----------------Stuff Deleted---------------------------
>
> >I think changing back to the Reply-to field being the list was a
> >mistake. A couple of people complained about low volume and zowie!, it
> >reverted back. Frankly, I was relieved to see the volume reduced to
> >some meaningful postings.
>
> The problem with that was that the posts where primarily questions only,
> all the replys or answers went directly to the original poster.
>
> I subscribe to this list to "listen in" and learn. People post a good
> question.... I think to my self "that's an interesting question/problem/
> comment/whatever", and I wait for an answer from one of the experts.
> I may even file it away for later. The way it was, I saw mostly questions.
>
> Since I don't have all the answers, there would be no good reason to
> continue to subscribe.
>
> Frankly, a little bit of noise doesn't bother me if there a STRONG
> signal.
If the above were true, I would agree, however, the noise level in this
group is larger than any other I have seen. Out of 100 posts, I find
about 20 that are relevant. The rest are duplicates, "subscribe me's",
"I agree/disagree", "Stop posting silly xxxx postings", Bounces, and
personal mailings.
Newsgroups on the internet work with replies going to the sender, and
follow-ups going to the newsgroup. There is a precedent for this
technique. All of the other lists I subscribe to have the reply-to
field as the sender.
It is very easy to create an alias for the list so that mailing to it
would not be difficult.
I think the problem you describe of mostly questions with replies going
to the sender is a direct result of this list being set up with the
replies going to the list. A little time would solve this problem.
Although I am concerned that you would consider dropping the list
as a result of this change, there have been people threatening to
leave the list due to high volume and high noise level (Allen
Hastings for example.) I think reply-to = sender, and the newsgroup are
the two best (and most common) solutions to this problem.
>
> Regards,
> Ed
> Jakobere@uwstout.edu
>
_____ Kevin Bagley kevin@mav.com 206-743-6659 NSS 32881
)___) _ _ _ Quote for the day: "I Hate Computers!"
_/___) (_(__(_)_/_)_ Disclaimer: I don't think, therefore I am not.
______________/ (I think!)