Don't worry about the list being distributed in digest form, it can't
possibly happen!!!
The list server will not allow it - it's as simple as that. :-)
Voting either for or against will not change that, it is not an option.
It appears we are going to go through this little exercise everytime we get
a couple of new members who think we are waisting their time. This maybe
the case. But then again
Andrew and I are more than happy to see SPAMS and semi personal type of chit
chat take place.
I will change my sig. block to state that the RML cannot be a digest or
words to that affect. Not that all will bother to read it <g>
Cheers
Alan - Co-owner RML
At 08:06 AM 1/18/97 -0700, Julie wrote:
>I guess, with all of the new members coming in since the last digest-vote,
>that we should probably vote this again. Seems fair to me anyhow. :-) I
>wish
>that what James argued for, a format that allowed a choice of form rather
>than one or the other, was a possiblity, but from my understanding it is
>not. Seems no matter what the outcome not everyone will be happy. I do NOT
>want to receive this list in digest form, as it is not a format I enjoy.
>Volume of postings notwithstanding, I like this list as is, SPAM and all.
>:-) With 101 (+?) members it is too bad we only see core members' postings
>until a subject like this comes up. I think lack of general participation
>is the main reason that this list has so much personal spam-type stuff in
>it. I like seeing all of these new names in the postings, and I hope
>digest or not it continues. :-) My $.02 into the pot. :-)
>
>Julie <><
>
>
>
|__________________________________\|/_________________________________|
Alan Ford aford at pcug.org.au Canberra, Australia
Perfect Love and Perfect Trust.
NOTE WELL *** The RML cannot be distributed in DIGEST form.***
Homepages: http://www.pcug.org.au/~aford
http://www.pcug.org.au/~aford/angfa.htm