|
Grex > Coop10 > #22: Motion to Restrict Non-Members to Sending Local E-Mail Only |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 15 new of 164 responses total. |
valerie
|
|
response 150 of 164:
| 
Aug 21 15:18 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 151 of 164:
|
Aug 21 15:36 UTC 1997 |
And several others have said they favor trying it, so that's a wash. However
I recognize that if staff is against it, it can't be done.
|
valerie
|
|
response 152 of 164:
|
Aug 21 15:42 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 153 of 164:
|
Aug 21 16:07 UTC 1997 |
As a "Try Grex, they have free email" er who later became a bbs-er, even later
became a member, and well after that became an outbound telnet user, I would
like to add that I have directed a number (9-10) of local people who would
not otherwise have email to Grex.
Especially in an affluent community like Ann Arbor, the free access to email
through Grex allows poorer people to be part of the technology loop. Today
in Ann Arbor it is an indication of poverty and lack of technica assets to
have to say, "Sorry, I dont have an email address". Sort of like saying,
Sorry, I dont have a phone, and there arent any public phones in my
neighborhood.
While I am strongly in favor of MOST of Grex's resources going to
conferencing, I am just as strongly opposed to requiring payments to Grex to
use our email system. And I would be VERY reluctant to vote for a system that
provided "lesser" access to email based on your poverty level.
|
richard
|
|
response 154 of 164:
|
Aug 21 17:37 UTC 1997 |
hmm...why are resources being wasted for a "staff mailing list" when there
is a "staff" conference set up for that purpose?
Staff should set an example of how to use resources wisely...either phase
out the mailing list or kill theconf..silly to have both
|
dang
|
|
response 155 of 164:
|
Aug 21 18:43 UTC 1997 |
The staff email list is very little staff communicating among itself. It's
mostly people communicating with staff. Today, for example, i got 36 email
messages on the various staff lists I'm on. (staff, baff, postmaster,
webmaster, comment, gripe, help, etc.) and probably 6 of them were staff
communicating with itself. It's useful for staff to communicatie sometimes
with email, because several staff members have their email forwarded to where
they work, and so have easy access to email but not easy access to
conferences. That said, the vaste majority of staff communication comes in
the staff cf.
|
davel
|
|
response 156 of 164:
|
Aug 21 20:28 UTC 1997 |
A lot of the email by staff to staff is also copies of responses to user
messages to staff, or similar messages, designed to keep other staffers
from thinking no one has yet dealt with a problem. The staff conference
would not be a good solution for this kind of thing, as people would
have to exit (or suspend) mail, read the staff conference, then go back
into mail & respond to the original problem message. It's pretty fast,
in comparison, to check whether your in box contains a response to a
particular user's message.
The staff conference normally is used for an entirely different kind of
communication, for which Picospan's usual advantages over a mailing list
are pretty impressive. For ongoing discussions, the ability to thread
them into items & quickly view others' new responses all together is
not something to throw away.
Richard, are you eager to do all *your* communicating either by email
or via Picospan because one has to be "redundant"? That was a truly
witless comment.
|
steve
|
|
response 157 of 164:
|
Aug 24 16:45 UTC 1997 |
Dave hit it on the head. Thanks for saying #156. Belive me folks,
when I say that a staff mailing list is needed. If you've ever sent
mail to staff with a problem, then you've experienced why such a list
is needed.
|
tsty
|
|
response 158 of 164:
|
Sep 1 07:59 UTC 1997 |
i *thought* i had made a response in here (from agora) a couple
hours ago... not updated yet?
it was about the 'staff mailing list' is not a problem, it's a red herring.
|
valerie
|
|
response 159 of 164:
|
Sep 1 15:09 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 160 of 164:
|
Sep 9 05:15 UTC 1997 |
possibly.. it was late/early ...
|
pfv
|
|
response 161 of 164:
|
May 21 15:58 UTC 1998 |
Darn it.. I posted a pop3 solution this morning, and can't find where
the heck I posted it *sigh* I guess this is also a suitable place to ask
and suggest....
Followed all the email debate.. Sounds all familiar.. Then.. I realize
I'm using this pretty BackTalk and.. hmm.. Idea time:
I keep getting told by "those in the know" that the web-side is almost
load-free to a system, yes?
OK, how about a web-side interface to reach your grex email?
With all the simplistic beauty of BackTalk, I suspect a web-side
interface would be handsome, load-light, and a damn fine asset.
Indeed, a button added to BackTalk could then provide the same "you have
mail" known to those that suffer^H^H^H^H^H^Henjoy Picospan and Yapp.
Now, this solution becomes ever more endearing if a mail-server is also
being run, but nothing says that it requires one.
"Yeah, but won't this promote Mail-Only Dufii?"
Could be.. But, it seems to me that coding THAT solution becomes
somewhat easier than having to mod all the other text-based
mail-programs. Further, this solution ALSO offers the ideal point to
return to Daves original idea - but twisted until it cries:
1) Shell-User Mail Restrictions:
You _could_ restrict Pine to members, and there goes a MAJOR
load from the CPU.. I suspect it might also prove astonishingly
economical to simply permit shell-guests to r/o from the shell-
and ONLY r/w from the webside.
2) Mailing Lists:
Wouldn't this be easiest handled at the stage the headers are
read and tested? If it's got a pile of addresses (cc'd and
whatnot) it could be tossed out, but...
A) Why not keep exactly ONE COPY around and merely pass the
users a pointer to some file? Thus, all the mailing lists get
jammed into a single location - even if in different files?
Anyway, nuf for the mmoment..
|
janc
|
|
response 162 of 164:
|
May 21 22:22 UTC 1998 |
Um, no. Web hosting is not "load free". Backtalk, for example, is probably
three or four times as demanding of system resources as Picospan is. I've
done a little work building web-email interfaces. The one I've been debugging
for a client is probably three or four times more demanding of system
resources than "pine" is. I think I could do better than that, but it would
be a moderately challenging project. Building something as quick as "mailx"
would be a quite hard.
If we offered a POP client, then I'd have no problem with also offering a
web-mail interface. Six of one, half dozen of the other.
I do have serious doubts if we want to go in this direction at all though.
|
dang
|
|
response 163 of 164:
|
May 23 18:38 UTC 1998 |
I agree. A web interface, IMHO, is just as bad as a POP interface. Worse,
even, because it's more load intensive. Besides, if you want free Web email,
go to hotmail, yes?
|
pfv
|
|
response 164 of 164:
|
May 24 19:35 UTC 1998 |
well, they have the "free" email anyway <shrug>
I was looking for size/speed alternatives.. I already KNOW pop3
isn't too bad, once we got my patch slapped in, anyway.
|