RE: failure notice

["Luke Vinogradov" <lukev@mail.com>]

>   >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?

I for one would find this useful.  Having only just subscribed to the
list and with the archive search engine on the audifans.com site
currently down, there's stuff I'm too afraid to ask lest it's one of the
"reoccurring annoyances" that I'm not aware of.  (List members might
consider it a bad enough waste of bandwidth that that it's my dull,
stock '81 4k I'm asking questions about, without repeating the
irritations of others in my posts...)

Luke