>On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Philo wrote:
>> Bottom line- there are people who prefer Usenet, and there are people who
>> prefer mail.

Without a doubt.

>>If you want maximum participation in your group, then offering
>> both is the way to go...

I am sure each mailing list has it's own characteristics based on reader's
needs and demographics.  For some mailing lists the participation rate might
not change if gated, for others it may skyrocket.

I estimate my list's readership doubled when I gatewayed the mailing list in
1996. Since then, about 10% have unsubscribed from the mailing list
(including me) in favor of using usenet.  Both venues, usenet participation
and subscriptions, have grown substantially since then.

Example: *I manage* a mailing list and I much prefer usenet.  Shortly after
I gatewayed I stopped mail from my mailing list.  There are many reasons
for many people, some compelling - and it's a bonus for someone who already
gets way too much mail.  And digest is no good for me - I can't stand them
without a decent digest reader, which I don't have.


>If list (and your personal) "security/privacy" is of no concern.

This could be handled.  Subscribers could remain anonyomous if the mail
server were programmed to post a bogus or anonymous/alias 'From:' for
subscribers who indicate they want to be anonymous (most mailing lists
already have the concept of hidden subscribers)

And I protect my subscribers by completely restricting the subscriber lists -
not even subscribers may get it.

>...Eight, ten years ago, there may have been an argument for usenet gateways.
>I don't think it applies today.
>Douglas

In short, I disagree - there is room and need for gatewayed lists.  Though
with web browser/local threaded mail readers, the reasons are perhaps less
compelling, but only for some people.

Wayne