At 11:22 AM -0500 on 1/9/00, Mark Rauterkus wrote:
>Hi,
>
>>How about going to NNTP?
>No thanks.
>
>If you want threading, gateway this list to that one on NNTP.
I'd do that.
>
>NNTP is spam rich, and majordomo isn't nearly as bad.
Netnews in general is spam-rich. However, we would not be a part of that.
We'd be running a single server, unconnected to the rest of the world. It'd
be no more likely spammed than any mailing list.
>And, NNTP isn't
>"modern." If we were to go to a different interface, I'd want to go into
>something NEW and BETTER. (hint: http://www.forumsamerica.com/Macintosh/)
A message board and chat? We could run an irc server, too, if you really
care for it.
As for what's so great about this site over MTNW, I have no idea.
>Personally, I love what interaction.in-progress.com can do. I crave a chat
>with A.I.
With the A.I.?! Where?
>
>Furthermore the type of interactions that occur on a mailing list generally
>don't make it to the news groups. More, "yea, right" and "trite" comments
>there.
That's due to a difference in who is there. But we'll have a small ng on
one server. There shouldn't be any difference on message quality based on
if one is typing into Eudora or MTNW.
>That alternative server isn't a "production" one -- and I'd hate to take
>these discussions anywhere that wasn't a rock-solid host for months on end
>-- and we've got that here now. That server seems to me to be a
>developmental box. It is great to have those resources for development --
>but things get too goofy when doing double duties.
We wouldn't think of moving anything until the linux box is stable.
>
>I seen no problem nor worries about bounces, subscriptions, and admins
>getting ticked off here. I think those are inflated assumptions that are NOT
>real. The grass isn't greener there, IMHO.
I read lots of email and lots of news -- and I'd say the grass is greener,
even on the normal usenet.
>
>As for the scaleable issue -- I asked MONTHS ago for a new "License" list to
>be created. To create a new list is sorta easy on the box such as the one we
>are now being hosted. The system admin could do it in 20 minutes, max. But,
>there wasn't a "demand" by the users to such a service. We have far more
>capacity on the box and bandwidth this is sitting on. We could expand 1,000
>fold and still be safe here I'm going to assume (for the sake of an
>illustration).
A mailing list that big is just rediculous.
