Chris' list not up to our needs

Apologies to Chris, who has done some wonderful work trying to set up
an alternative for us to Yahoo, but I really don't feel that Chris'
list is up to our needs.

I can't even figure out how to post a reply to a *specific* message
on it... (??)

There is no search archive feature, and the Web interface only
browses *existing* messages. You can't post to it; so it's basically
an e-mail activity, like the Mills list was years ago.

USENET looks OK to me if somebody could figure out how to set it up
but, quite frankly, I believe Yahoo is superior to Chris' Columbia
list, ads and all as it currently stands.

jp

----- Original Message -----
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>

> There is no search archive feature, and the Web interface only
> browses *existing* messages. You can't post to it; so it's basically
> an e-mail activity, like the Mills list was years ago.

Which is just fine by me. Email is all I have time for.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> Apologies to Chris, who has done some wonderful work trying to set up
> an alternative for us to Yahoo, but I really don't feel that Chris'
> list is up to our needs.

Since the problem was centered around the web-based interface, I don't see how it will work without giving us another one. I think Gresham's Law might move people onto another list if it was less aggrivating, but it won't work if it is also so much less flexible.
On the other hand, if Yahoo goes completely bonkers, which seems increasingly likely, the fact that this other list already exists could be extremely helpful. I suggest keeping it, but I don't think it will work to move the traffic there as things are now.

On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 14:41:14 -0000, "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

>Apologies to Chris, who has done some wonderful work trying to set up
>an alternative for us to Yahoo, but I really don't feel that Chris'
>list is up to our needs.

Speak for yourself. Personally, I think the Yahoo web interface is awkward
and time-consuming to use, and I prefer having the ability to read the list
offline.

>USENET looks OK to me if somebody could figure out how to set it up
>but, quite frankly, I believe Yahoo is superior to Chris' Columbia
>list, ads and all as it currently stands.

Usenet might have some benefits, although I doubt they would be worth the
added risk of junk mail once the spam harvesters start getting it. (This is
also a risk with any web interface, but at least Yahoogroups hides email
addresses.) Additionally, it might be difficult to get enough votes to get
a Usenet group started. But that's certainly a possibility.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herman Miller" <hmiller@IO.COM>

> On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 14:41:14 -0000, "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >Apologies to Chris, who has done some wonderful work trying to set up
> >an alternative for us to Yahoo, but I really don't feel that Chris'
> >list is up to our needs.
>
> Speak for yourself. Personally, I think the Yahoo web interface is awkward
> and time-consuming to use, and I prefer having the ability to read the
list
> offline.
>
> >USENET looks OK to me if somebody could figure out how to set it up
> >but, quite frankly, I believe Yahoo is superior to Chris' Columbia
> >list, ads and all as it currently stands.
>
> Usenet might have some benefits, although I doubt they would be worth the
> added risk of junk mail once the spam harvesters start getting it. (This
is
> also a risk with any web interface, but at least Yahoogroups hides email
> addresses.) Additionally, it might be difficult to get enough votes to get
> a Usenet group started. But that's certainly a possibility.

Me too.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley