SG> People may point out the option of a mailing list digest, which I
SG> think is a valid alternative. The traffic could be reduced to one
SG> message per day for those people subscribing to the digested
SG> version.
SG> Since this will be brought up by opponents, it needs to be
SG> discussed. We may find that it's a better solution than a
SG> newsgroup, in which case we go with it, or else (assuming we are
SG> rational people) we'll have valid reasons why a digest is not an
SG> acceptable solution, in which case those reasons should be
SG> summarized and stated somewhere appropriate.
I'd be quite happy to subscribe to a digest version of the mailing
list. I'm already subscribed to a couple of other digests, and
they seem to work fine. Instead of dozens of individual e-mails a
day, you just get one. It's true that you can't tell all the
subjects in it from the header, but as soon as you open it up it
has a contents list. As far as I can tell, this is compiled
automatically. I'm also subscribed to about 3 lists without a
digest form and it's a pain in the neck. I get over a hundred
messages a day, and sorting through them is a real hassle,
especially when I'm just checking for any personal urgent messages.
I'm not saying a digest would be better than a newsgroup, just
better than the present system. At least it's a convenient option,
that could let others less keen keep the current system. I don't
know what advantages a newsgroup would have, but I'd like to find
out. I suppose it would be more easily found, and therefore more
widely subscribed to. Although popularity can have its drawbacks
too. Any comments?
Tim