response 100 of 164:

Aug 10 10:36 UTC 1997

Thanks, moonowl!

response 102 of 164:

Aug 11 15:42 UTC 1997

Soo - what are some of the better ways of weeding out people who only
use us for e-mail?

response 104 of 164:

Aug 11 17:15 UTC 1997

A thought:
I know a bunch of people now who are using hotmail or usa.net or some other
such email-provider.  I've never used these, but would it be possible to point
new users who just want free email in this direction?
A counter-thought:
Would we *want* to point users who just want free email in this direction?
Would the reduced load on the system be worth losing those users who start
using mail and drift into party or the conferences?

response 106 of 164:

Aug 11 17:56 UTC 1997

Re #102: in another item I made a suggestion for bending the twig slightly,
so to speak. A lot of the discussion here has made the issue black-and-white,
but there are many intermediate options, all of which set some sort of cap
or limit on the use of e-mail by non-members. Therse are perqs for membership,
of course, but can be very weak ones, and yet could have a large impact.
For example, limit non-members to, say, 5 e-mail messages a day, or delay
transmittal of non-member e-mail to the most open free-time for the system,
or...(your turn!). 

response 108 of 164:

Aug 11 20:50 UTC 1997

Upon further consideration, I dont think such "twig benders" would work. 
 If a nonmember were limited to say, 10 email messages a day, some moron 
who doesnt like him could set up a mail spam routine to fill his quota 
and prevent him from ever getting any real email.

But also, such quotas would encourage people to set up multiple email 
addresses here so they can receive as much mail as possible.  It would 
just be confusion in all likelihood, and *lots* of bounced letters.

Unless you want to start verifying everyone and limiting people to one 
login and one login only, email caps of any kind just wont work I doubt.

response 110 of 164:

Aug 11 22:23 UTC 1997

        If someone's full e-mail box is causing more problems than
just the volume of e-mail, why not look at a solution to the 
problem of full mail boxes?  
        Can it be rigged so that when mail comes in and discovers
no room for mail, after sooing the mail away, how about relieving
that mail box of it's oldest unread mail.  Guest or member, anyone
not tending to large mail volumes is decreasing system resources
by doing nothing, as opposed to others who actually use the system.
???

response 112 of 164:

Aug 11 22:56 UTC 1997

   Heh.  Not to mention that its all software that would have to
be written, taking time away from other projects.

response 114 of 164:

Aug 12 01:35 UTC 1997

I would think some "twig benders" would be easier to write than others. The
general idea can't be dismissed until one evaluates specific suggestions.

Re #108: limiting incoming mail is one kind of twig bender, but not the one
I identified. I thought limiting outgoing e-mail - in either # messages
or their priority of being transmitted - might be a choice. Applying the
twig bender to outgoing mail does not cause the problems identified in #108.
If the twig is bent *too far* even then some users might create multiple
account for sending mail, but they are not likely to if the twig is bent only
slightly. They would be more likely to join to make life simpler.

My REAL point is that there are probably some useful tactics that could be
applied, to improve the situation. We already have tactics all over the place
so implementing tactics is not a new idea. Finding the right ones would be.

response 116 of 164:

Aug 12 18:12 UTC 1997

  We certainly don't want to do anything which will make mail access
  depend on conference participation or we'll have a bunch of people
  bouncing around the conferences who are more concerned with upping
  their e-mail quota than they are with genuine conference participation.

response 118 of 164:

Aug 12 22:08 UTC 1997

E-mail is a way to bring people in.  It shouldnt be restricted 
idealistically.  In fact, I still think it would be a good idea to 
have POP email on the web page, or create a new self-contained 
webmail interface using the backtalk editor.  If people can do 
email via the webpage, they wont have to telnet in and the que 
loads will be lessened.

response 120 of 164:

Aug 13 00:12 UTC 1997

I see current e-mail as "just a free service we provide to all comers"
as there is no real impetus to use anything else, except for mild
appeals. The amount of interface to "grex" using e-mail is negligibly
greater than using pop mail. In fact, that is why there are so many
e-mail only users. I assert that e-mail does NOT serve to "briong people in",
except for a very few. 

My "twig bender" approach would, in fact NOT restrict access to e-mail
at all, but would make it a trifle less convenient than an e-mail only
server (I like the idea of delaying non-member e-mail to low-traffic periods,
as an initial experiment).

This idea also does not conflict with your your paradigm either. Since we
agree that grex is not the most attractive e-mail service, adjusting its
attractiveness does not create a new paradigm.

response 122 of 164:

Aug 13 02:52 UTC 1997

I agree with mta - it is one thing not to work to reduce the mail load, and
another thing entirely to invite it to increase.

response 124 of 164:

Aug 13 06:17 UTC 1997

I would hope that by having a couple of piddling distinctions between
perqs of members and nonmembers, more would join. Such minor perqs are
no different from, for example, a newsletter other organizations give
members. Most nonprofits have to offer a few perqs just to distinguish
members from nomembers, and it is recognized in law that perqs of
minor value normally come with membership in an organization (without
affecting deductibility of dues to exempt organizations).