On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:22:59AM +0100, Michael Lush wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Sue Spence wrote: > >2009/9/17 Jacqui Caren <jacqui.ca...@ntlworld.com> > >>Robert Shiels wrote: > >>>Don't really want my mbox file filling up with them. > >> > >>I dont mind doing reviews and the idea of a FAQ review > >>is a good one but trying to "push me" will not work. > >> > >>I think the idea would have been shot down if I suggested posting > >>three or more FAQs to here every week. > >> > >>Why not post (a different) one a month to lost of .pm lists? > >> > >>Once a month is tolerable. Three a week when perlfaq is a command > >>on almost every server I have access to is ... words fail me. > > > >Almost everyone is being wildly tolerant of this idea. I'm not fond of it > >myself, though. Not when could be done in a separate list for those who > >would like to see perlfaqs in their mailbox. Social discussion lists > >shouldn't have automated posting directed to them. > > Would it be more 'interesting'/tolarable if a random monthly 'faqbite' > was posted. I'd be inclined to read a single answer out of curiosity, > I'd simply ignore the whole thing.
I'm going to stick my neck out. I don't want *random* Automated regular mailing of a random FAQ entry is spam. If someone cares to pick an *interesting* FAQ entry every so often, and mail it, *along with* some comments to prompt discussion, that's different. That has a human behind it, and is far more likely to actually engage people. "Oh it's easy to filter" is analogous to "just hit delete" on spam, and opt-out mailing lists. If people would really like an automatic thrice-weekly FAQ fettling list, then people are welcome to set one up and advertise its existence to this list. Nicholas Clark