Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!samsung!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!lori
From: lori@hacgate.scg.hac.com (Lori Barfield)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: Internet Bandwidth
Message-ID: <6504@hacgate.scg.hac.com>
Date: 18 Dec 89 21:24:02 GMT
References: <8912181633.AA12104@umix.cc.umich.edu>
Reply-To: lori@hacgate.UUCP (Lori Barfield)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 34

In article <8912181633.AA12104@umix.cc.umich.edu> SRFERGU@ERENJ.BITNET (Scott Ferguson) writes:
>
>I think it would be more proper for those with large numbers of problems
>to send them in one long message, thus saving time on the internet, as well
>as making them all easier to get through instead of wading through
>hundreds of lines of message headers.
>
>Anyone else care to comment?

I disagree.  If a message header says "Multifarious and Sundry Questions,"
how are you going to know to 'n' past it without reading the whole darn
thing?  Then what if the discussion goes in three different directions?

I think even tiny questions on unrelated topics should be posted
individually, so we can read all the messages we want in a given day's
crop, then 'c' the rest away.  Also, sometimes trivial issues become
meaty discussions, and if they start out under an inappropriate or
nebulous Subject:, then one could miss an enlightening debate.

I do suggest, however, that SR9-specific issues have SR9 in the
Subject: so SR10 people can kill these out.  Also, Unix- or Aegis-
specific topics might also contain those keywords in the Subject:.
And if DN10k-type discussions have that in the header, the rest of
us Motorola-bound admins can just disregard.

I say put this info in the Subject: because kill files work lots
faster when that's the only place they have to look, and a quick
scan of the Subject: lines is what I do first when I log in.

For me, it's not the number of messages, but getting to the right
ones quickly.


...lori