From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 24 14:28:14 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id OAA17753 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 14:28:14 -0700 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA17747 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 1995 14:28:12 -0700 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA19990; Mon, 24 Apr 95 15:21:49 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9504242121.AA19990@cs.weber.edu> Subject: List management: DIGEST TIME? To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Date: Mon, 24 Apr 95 15:21:48 MDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk While everyone is at list/newgroup/gateway reform... Has anyone considered that digesting the lists would both reduce the mail load and reduce the inbox load for people? It would also reduce the number of connections people would have to deal with coming into their box (If they pay that way). CV: the Samba list Of course, a potential missing piece is the exploder you'd want to use so that reply messages didn't reference digest subjects instead of referencing the actual subject of the message in the digest being responded to. Also like the Samba list, this would not have to be mandatory -- you could be on either a direct repeat or a digest repeat (I'm on the digest repeat for the samba, but would want to stay on the regular lists for most of the FreeBSD lists I'm on, except questions, where it would be easier to batch-answer problems). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.