><snip>
>It has been pointed out several times in the last few Digests that
>a web forum such as photo.net provides an option to deliver new articles
>in a digest format by e-mail. Hence points #1 to #4 don't make much
>sense.
>
>#5 is even farther off the mark. Any one of us can go to the Nikon Digest
>server to acquire a complete list of the e-mail address of all the Digest
>precipitants. If you are really that concerned about getting spammed,
>you shouldn't (1) join the Nikon Digest and (2) post to the Digest.
>A web forum, on the other hand, can be read without ever providing your
>e-mail address. Of course, if you post, that is a different situation, but
>you are still no worse off than posting to an e-mail digest.
>
>As far as I can see, the only major problem with photo.net is that
>you cannot post by e-mail, and that is indeed a major problem for
>those without web access. However, unfortunately, a lot of people
>simply oppose it without understanding the pros and cons.
>
>The bottomline is that as far as I know, there is still nobody with time
>and resources to replace the great work Andrew Donkin has been doing
>in the last 5 years. If the majority wants to keep it as an e-mail Digest,
>who is going to replace Andrew?
>
><snip>
Regarding #5, yes someone has to GO to the web site and scan for the
email addresses. Some PUBLIC email/group discussion servers
INTERNALLY generate a list for their owner to sell. Since photo.net
is not a PUBLIC email list server, we need to make sure that the
possibility of someone generating an email list from the postings is
limited as much as possible.
Regarding Postings, it appears that you MUST post via a web page.
This is a negative for some worth considering.
I agree that Andrew Donkin has provided a GREAT service. If THIS
discussion group MOVES to a web-based service, I have a feeling that
some will reduce their activity, or stop all together.
-Mike Baranowski
