Re: list freezes

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:45:20 +0100, taliesin the storyteller
<taliesin@...> wrote:

>Converted from UTF-7, subject-line deuglified.
>
>* Roger Mills said on 2002-01-16 01:40:59 +0100
>> Just out of curiosity:  is it the *number* of messages, or their
>> *total size* that constipates the list?
>
>Number. Trust me on this. People simply don't have the time to read
>it all. I don't think there's any *technological* limit to how much
>mail the server or clients can handle, the problem is overload in
>the *human*. Combining several posts in one mail wont help, that'll
>just make it even more impossible to keep track of who said what as
>an answer to foo.
>
>Personal experience:
>When I was in waaay over my had about a year ago, I spent more than
>three hours a day wading through my mail (200-1200 a day not counting
>logs), just *reading* it, maybe answering about 1%. December (2001)
>I had to start doing something I've never before done with conlang,
>skipping over messages entirely.
One thing that cuts way back on my own posts is not replying until I've
read all the available messages for a given list (I think DaW also
mentioned this). By the time I'm done, I've usually forgotten what I wanted
to reply to (as well as eliminating a lot of metoos). I wouldn't be
replying to this if it didn't happen to be the last message.

>It's easier to handle lots and lots and lots and lots of mail if the
>senders stick to some form of rules, and the *same* rules: Quote
>the same way. Subjects the same way (*choosing* one of 'Re:', 'Re:    ',
>'RE:'. 'Aw:', 'Answer:', 'SV:', 'Sv:' etc. so that you can see replies
>at a glance). Using the same format (all text or all html for instance).
>Not sending a one-line reply when it does nothing but prove the replier's
>leetness. Knowing when to send to the entire list and when to send just
>to the originator. Not sending almost-duplicate mail (preventing automatic
>removal of duplicates) etc. etc. etc. Simply making it possible to let the
>computer do the repetitive sorting and handling of the mail.
>
>Since this is depending on human cooperation it'll happen when hell
>freezes over. (Evil clients doesn't help either, but they had
>uncooperative programmers/developers. So there.)
Yes, my understanding is that things like 'Re:' are done automatically by
software when creating emails, each program/version doing things its own
way. Unfortunately, many of us are stuck with clunky software.

Hmmm. Maybe the 'conlang' list should be renamed the 'hell' list? The list
has already frozen a few times.

>Take this mail for instance, it's completely redundant and I shouldn't
>bother the list with it. It just states things "everyone" knows already,
>right? Netiquette, right?
>
>Nothing personal, Rog, just frustrated.
>
>
>t., who's become a grumpy old fart, and hates it.
could be worse
Jeff