Listowners-L Archives

Archiver > Listowners > 1997-12 > 0881504777


Subject: Re: AOL Problems
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 06:26:17 -0800


> From: C Hammett <>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AOL Problems
>
> As to other AOL problems, our lists have had no more with AOL than with any
> other server, and not as many as with some. I find the idea of
> disenfranchising subscribers who use AOL unthinkable, and would remind all
> that it is _Because_ AOL is so large that many subscribers _must_ use
> them... AOL being the only provider with a local phone access number.

In my own defense, I will just restate that the only reason I have
even considered this is that the seven lists under my control are
all gatewayed to Usenet newsgroups. Since AOL subscribers have
access to Usenet, they would not be disenfranchised by this
change. (In fact, the lists were originally created only so that
people without Usenet access would still be able to read them, so
this would even be in keeping with the list charter.)

The idea is not to punish AOL users for being Bad People. It is
to make the listowner's job manageable. Between the seven lists I
maintain, each with three formats (index, mail and digest), I have
4620 subscribers, of which 852 are AOL users. With around 60
messages a day being sent to *each* list, that's quite a large
daily volume of mail to AOL users. Thus, even if only a fraction
of those 852 AOL addresses go bad, it produces a lot of work for
me, and means less time for me to improve the lists for the other
3800 subscribers. It seems like a lose-lose situation for me,
AOL, and all of the subscribers.

So I hope you see that I am not morally opposed to the use of AOL,
even if I used to be. It simply appears to me that AOL
subscribers are both unnecessary (since they have Usenet access to
these lists) and actually detrimental to other subscribers, in my
particular case.

Regards,
Tim Pierce,
soc.genealogy.surnames moderator-in-chie

This thread: