At 6:44 PM -0400 4/8/01, JC Dill is rumored to have typed:
> Digests are useful to, and primarily/frequently used by, those who are too
> clueless to configure their email client to filter single messages into a
> list folder (which is a huge percentage of Internet users). Because they
> don't know how to filter *at all*, the ability to filter/sort per message
> is something they don't miss.
I'm certain you meant no disrespect, and I assure you that I mean none
whatsoever when I urge you not to presume a user's reasons for prefering a
digested version of a mailing list. I am quite capable of filtering using a
wide variety of different email clients on and off unix, and I _prefer_
digests because I find I can read through them more quickly, and can archive
them much easier. This may have more to do with the way I process
information, I certainly don't know. I simply find them more efficient for
me. (In some cases, like this list, I receive _both_ versions - I read the
interactive one when I am involved in a discussion, and read/archive the
digested version when I am not. And yes, I filter both the digests and the
interactives into a seperate mailbox file, and am quite capable of keeping my
inbox uncluttered for more important mail by setting filters based on header
fields or body content depending on the purpose of the filter.)
From a listmaster's standpoint, there is also a value to digested
lists...indeed, I have two moderated lists on my server which are ONLY
available in digested versions, with no interactive versions available. This
effectively throttles the already too busy lists (they are not software
support lists, but rather hobbiest lists, where immediate access to
information is not necessary), eliminating all of the bothersome "Me, Too!"
and other knee-jerk responses. I certainly wouldn't suggest you subscribe to
them, feeling as you do, but I plan on maintaining this policy for those
specific lists, while maintaining the usual dual versions of other lists on
the server. (FWIW, those two are explicitly marked as text/plain at least
until I am comfortable that the multipart/digest type makes sense - this list
and the people on it have been _extrordinarily_ valuable in this area.)
I do _not_ presume to suggest that all lists should be digest-only,
believe me...however, there are as many reasons to prefer them from both user
and listmaster standpoints as there are not to prefer them.
Your arguments are _exactly_ the ones I use when arguing against munging
the subject with those annoying "[listname]" things that listmasters seem
determined to muddle their subjects with to avoid having their users lear to
filter on other list-specific header fields (something I simply refuse to
do); they really have no relevance whatsoever to whether or not to select a
digest.
Charlie
