digest size

It's unfortunate that there's no way to have a choice of digest sizes-- this would probably be the ideal option. (At least there isn't as far as I know.) If there was some method of putting the issue to a vote without crashing listserv with single word messages (Bob, turn the filters on!!!) this might be another approach.

Personally, I can live with either digest format, though, as I said before, I prefer the smaller size. I initially raised the issue because of several contacts from people re the truncation of the digests. But I'm concerned when I hear from people whose email server truncates messages. What we get down to is the the greatest good for the most people. If a smaller digest is a major problem for alot of people, then it's the wrong choice. Certainly, having to go on ACK can be a _major_ problem for many of us, even people like me who press D for delete first and ask questions later...

So where I end up is that if smaller digests are a minor problem for a few people, and forcing people to go to ACK is a major problem for a few people (the alternative being to only get half the digest before their mail processor truncates it), we ought to keep the digest at the smaller size. But if the smaller digests are a major problem for many on the listserv, we ought to go back to the big ones, and say tough luck, go to ACK to the people whose mail gets truncated. 

Most of the traffic on photo-3d isn't a matter of life or death, and waiting an extra day or two before jumping back into the fray re some interesting thread seems workable to me. Think of how slow the digest communication must look to the people on ACK... 



--Elliott


------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1140
***************************