Advertising and Web Hosting on Woodwind.Org!

Klarinet Archive - Posting 000403.txt from 1995/03

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.NET>
Subj: Re: Charges for On-Line Time
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 08:51:03 -0500

Lee Callet said:

>I agree about receiving all messages, and not suppressing comminication.
> (America Online has "flashmail" access, whereby all messages may be read
>off-line, deleted without reading, etc.) My only complaint is when someone,
>responding to a previous e-mail, copies the ENTIRE message before responding.

That's a good point. Copying the entire message is generally wasteful, but
copying =pertinent= parts of the message to retain context of the reply, is
very helpful.

Also, someone mentioned the possibility of "digesting" the list. I, for
one, wish to register strong opposition to this concept, because it is a
HUGE time waster. By putting messages into single files, you defeat the
entire functionality of E-mail software, which is what allows you rapid and
convenient access to messages in the first place!

* E-mail gives you a message subject directory to choose from, digest
form does not.

* E-mail allows you to selectively read and delete messages,
en masse or one at a time.

* E-mail allows you to sort messages.

* E-mail (some packages anyhow) allow you to selectively filter
your incoming message stream.

* etc., etc.

None of these are possible when all the messages are crammed together in
one ASCII file. Furthermore, digesting saves no significant amount of
transmission time, either. The main reason for digesting is for large
backup archives that are then searched by computers (using database
software) not people. Using it as a means of communicating to individuals
via E-mail is cumbersome, slow, ineffecient, ineffective, annoying, . . .

You get the drift. Vote NO on digesting!

--------------------

Jonathan Cohler
cohler@-----.net

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org