Brad,

I use a newsreader as well although the posts get delayed and
sometimes don't get through.    If I was signed up on the list I would
set up Outlook to divert all messages from the list to a folder.

Unfortunately some 3000Ler's don't have access to good email software.
This is a problem especially for those overseas or who have to use
services that are available internationally in places such as New
Zealand.


"Brad Feazell" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:[log in to unmask]
...
>> 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.
> >
>
>