"Bernie Cosell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I"ve said this here before and... Why are there still digests? An excellent question! Here is an answer. Digests are still popular because many list members (especially those using "civilian" ISP's with quotas and clunky interfaces, like AOL and Hotmail, and/or people who are on a lot of different lists) find it more convenient to have ONE daily entry in their inbox for a given topic of interest (african railroads, pulsar astronomy, "Survivor II") than to have dozens of entries. Digest represent a member CHOICE in how they want their list traffic organized. People like having a choice, and many people simply like digests. All implied suggestions to the contrary in this forum notwithstanding, mailing lists exist to serve real people. Real people have better things to do than wonk out on whatever dazzlingly capable email software the priesthood has blessed this month. With a few exceptions, they aren't going to learn a lot of fancy folder rules, _even if the client they're using supports it_. Digests do have longstanding drawbacks, like subject lines in replies and, nowadays, missing filters for HTML crap on some servers. But people like them. The way we know this is that when you offer them, and you don't make it impossibly hard to switch, about half of any large list ends up taking a digest. Mail list managers commit a grave error when they favor the computer-expert few at the expense of the nonexpert many. That includes foisting servers, clients, or formats on the membership because they seem 'neat' or 'the latest thing' in the absence of evidence that they help the primary mission of exchanging topic-centered info with a minimum of BS.
