> 1. it keeps parity between people with direct internet connections
> and those with overseas, uucp, compuserve, and aol connections.
Are any of these qualitively slower than "direct" (impliedly, US-based) internet addresses? I don't think that the trans-pondal link, to cite that with which I have direct experience, is a huge factor these days. Not infrequently, I send off a number of messages that I've just uploaded, and get biffed with a oncoming Digest before I've sent the last one...
> 2. it reduces the amount of duplicate information that you
> inevitably get on direct-reflecting lists because of message lag.
Unless the list is moderated, to remove such duplication (a lot of largely thankless work), digesting does nothing to help this, and indeed acts to worsen it, by adding in _extra_ message lag.
> 3. I noticed when comparing the old rq-daily-digest to the
> g.r.a.s.s. list that the content of digested lists was usually higher
> quality than direct-reflecting lists, and that it encouraged lurkers
> to participate fully.
I'd imagine this was an artefact of the different topics and communities, rather than the mode of distribution. Any evidence to suggest differently?
> 4. I get about 100 bounces a day from the digest. If it were a
> direct list I'd get 400 to 1000 bounces. It would no longer be any
> fun to administrate.
Is this a bigger problem with the Glorantha digest than with the rules list? I sympathise in any case, but I don't see why the distinction on this count.
Having said all this, I'm not particularly bothered about continued distribution by Digest (only), since it's short-period enough not to get too annoying. The main annoyance, I find, is the digest format itself, which the mailers I use find a tad, well, indigestable.
Still trying to figure out mail filters, Alex.
End of Glorantha Digest V1 #167
Powered by hypermail