failure notice

[Eric_R_Kissell@email.whirlpool.com]

  Phil Payne wrote:
  [snip]
  >But - is the digest itself actually part of the problem?
  
  >Many questions seem to receive two groups of answers - one 
  >or two immediate replys, and then perhaps two to four a day 
  >later, when many of us have already forgotten the issue.
  
  >Is it possible that the phenomenon of digest readers seeing 
  >and answering questions up to a day after the whole issue is 
  >done and dusted is one of the most significant contributions 
  >to wasted bandwidth?
  [snip]
  
  How is it any different reading a digest compared to reading 
  some 30 or 40 messages that accumulated while I was away from 
  my computer?  It seems as likely for someone to respond to a 
  single post without reading through all of their accumulated 
  messages as for a person to respond to a part of the digest 
  without finishing a single digest or two.  This seems six in 
  one hand and a half dozen in the other.  I just do not see 
  one as any worse or less probable than the other.  
  
  The real key is education of our list members as to proper 
  etiquette for posts and responses.  Maybe we need a detailed 
  "before you join" instruction message with all of the 
  reoccurring annoyances outlined preemptively.  How about a 
  "refresher" for list etiquette for everyone from those in the 
  know?
  
  Now the issue of people posting a reply containing an entire 
  digest really is an annoyance.  And please do not get me 
  started about the ugly MIME garbage.
  
  Eric R. Kissell
  5000cstq, 1.8 bar