Initially the news feed was at times unreliable, I believe that
is why more people on this list read via the inbox.

FWIW.

Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Feazell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 1:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: OT:"Actually, wildly off-topic" messages
>
>
> I know many people in this list read HP3000-L messages in a
> mail client
> rather than a news reader but I don't understand why. I am a
> member of only
> two mailing lists that produce very few messages a week to my
> inbox. If the
> volume was anywhere near the volume in HP3000-L, I'd never
> consider letting
> it hit my inbox.
>
> A news reader makes it so easy to ignore non-relevant information in
> addition to putting me in complete control over the
> interruption factor. So
> why not use a news reader?
>
> Another thing that would make reading this list more
> convenient would be the
> uniform placement of responses at the top of the original. There are
> appropriate times to combine the response with the original
> but placing the
> entire response at the bottom is unorthodox in 2001, isn't
> it? It's just
> much quicker to read it from the top no matter if you're
> using a mail client
> or a news reader.
>
> By the way, I have no problem with the OT traffic in this forum.
>
> Just my opinion (placed on top of the original where it belongs).
>
> Brad Feazell
>
>
> "John Clogg" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
> news:9ad7ip058t@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > I must agree with Michael.  Sure, there are many of us who
> are interested
> in
> > debates on politics, religion, whether the moon landings
> were hoaxes, etc.
> > I'm also sure there are discussion areas somewhere for
> those topics.  This
> > list is allegedly an HP3000 list.  Most of us who subscribe
> to this list
> > receive the postings while we are at work, and most of us
> have plenty of
> > work to do.  I have dropped out of the list a few times,
> because the drain
> > on my time was simply unmanageable.  Please, let's try to
> keep the volume
> of
> > off-topic stuff reasonable. I agree with Cortlandt that a
> list of standard
> > prefixes, while never adequate to cover all situations,
> would be helpful
> for
> > both filtering and archive searches.
> >
>