My votes - 

1.  Limit the jokes and combine with useful information: yes.

2.  Have message categories on TREG: yes.

3. Fix the "BOUNCE . . . " subject headers: yes.

-----Original Message-----
From:   David Drori [SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent:   Monday, June 23, 1997 4:27 AM
To:     TREG
Subject:        Avoiding undesired TREG messages by categorizing

Dear Treggers,

I have been following the recent flood of messages with dismay. It detracts
from my satisfaction with a forum that is otherwise a professional and
extremely useful one, and which benefits from the enthusiasm and
public-spirited nature of its members. 

Personally, I prefer not to have my mailbox filled with messages that are
irrelevant to me, just as I prefer watching a film on TV, uninterrupted by
advertising. I do not like having to wait on-line for an extra couple of
minutes receiving undesirable items, when I am expecting an important
letter. I also hate having to sift through endless repetitions of a joke
with added comments. There are plenty of opportunities for wit and humor,
but I really do not consider that a whole message should be set aside for
this, except possibly once a year on April Fool's Day (even once a week is
too much for me), which provides a transient opportunity for true revelry.
Instead, one might add a brief witty remark during the course of a message
devoted largely to useful regulatory matters.

Some members do not agree with me. However, they are perfectly entitled to
think otherwise and to have different expectations from this forum.
Therefore, I wish to suggest a way of trying to please everybody, and at
the same time overcoming one of the main shortcomings of TREG: the large
volume of messages that are sometimes received about a subject that
interests only certain members.

What I propose is to divide TREG into several sections: telecom analog,
telecom digital, telecom acoustics, EMC, Safety, descriptions of
information sources, test equipment, job postings, regulatory humor, and --
dare I suggest it -- advertising (which, under control, can serve a useful
purpose to us all), plus others that you may feel are worthwhile.

Each of the TREG sections would have its own address for submitting
messages, which would mean that the sorting process would run automatically
at the discretion of those posting the messages.

Assuming that this is feasible from a technical standpoint, then at the
inception of the upgraded forum, each of us will need to send a SUBSCRIBE
message, indicating which of the sections interest us. Each member will
subsequently receive only the messages posted on the sections he has
specified (or all messages, if the member has so requested).

If a member is interested in viewing messages in a section that he or she
has not specified, the Web site on which TREG postings are published will
be the place to go, just as it is today. The subscriber will benefit from
the advantages of the site's search engine, and from not having to store
huge amounts of information locally.

I am also unhappy with the number of messages that contain no useful title
in the Subject field, and I have the following suggestions:

1. There appears to be a technical limitation in the server operation that
often causes the subject to appear as "BOUNCE treg,...". This ought to be
corrected (if possible) to allow the subject name, as submitted, to appear
in the message when it is subsequently distributed.

2. I feel that some subscribers could go the extra mile to think carefully
about subject names, so as to pack maximum information about the content
into a few words. This will help all of us to sort the wheat from the
chaff.

3. Separate messages should be used to discuss separate subjects whenever
this is practical (which it usually is). This aids in choosing an apt
subject name, and filing information for later perusal (and will help
decide in which section to post a message, assuming that my proposal is
adopted).

One last point: I fully agree with Vic Boersma's recent remark about some
members not identifying themselves. For several reasons, I suggest that
every message should include full details of the originator, including all
means for reaching him (address, telephone and fax numbers, and preferred
e-mail address), and the name of the organization to whom he or she
belongs, if any,

Well, that's my effort to transform what I see as a setback into an
evolutionary improvement to our own little world; to come out of this minor
debacle strengthened, with our social order and efficiency improved, and
all members happier -- including those whose quality of life is enhanced by
piping periodic doses of regulatory humour to their screens, as the case
may be. I sincerely hope that something comes of it!

Best regards,

David Drori

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
Novarex Enterprises Ltd.,
POB 2833,
Jerusalem 91028,
Israel.
Tel: +972 2 581 0995
Fax: +972 2 581 3750
Mobile: +972 5 067 8686
E-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------

<<application/ms-tnef>>

Reply via email to