On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Mario Rups wrote, in part:
> Which, unfortunately, lands a whopping big digest in your mail box for each
> repeat error of this type.  That's why I *refuse* to do that.  Have you
> considered setting people to "index" instead?  They can thus fetch the missing
> info for themselves, but the listowner isn't bothered by the big bouncies.
 
Yes, the error messages for digests are enormous for a busy list.  But it
is only one error message, which can quickly be deleted, and the digest
error will be smaller than the aggregate of errors for the individual
items.
 
Index is certainly a valid option, and the errors will be smaller.
However, when the individual subscriber's service clears up and can
once again receive mail, if you set them to digest they at least start
getting list items again, *with no effort*.  With index the subscriber
would actually have to *DO* something to get the list items.  That is,
excuse me, a major no-no (generates a lot of anti-listowner flak) when
it can be avoided.
 
The fewer things the subscribers have to gripe about, and the more
simply the problems can be explained (and index takes a lot of explanation)
the better I like it, and, I think, they like it.  For us, digest fills
the bill nicely.
 
Douglas
       Douglas Winship   Hays County, Texas  [log in to unmask]
                    Secondary AUTOCAT Listowner
                              MEDLAB-L