I believe the suggestion was the obverse: who NOT to use, but I won't beat a dead horse.  As a long-time list-owner of an active list of diverse email-experienced users, I've had the opportunity to build up a domain of knowledge.  There are certain ISPs that I would steer clear of if I were to depend upon a reliable and available email system.

Being a list-operator who is interested in the reliable transfer of information, it is my duty to give my customers the benefit of my experience, esp. when my customers complain to me about their inability to reliably receive list postings.

<rhetorical>
How much of your GI-time are you willing to spend assisting *some* of your customers (perhaps at the expense of helping others) on trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?  That doesn't mean that you should not try, but at some point you're going to hit your head up against a wall.
</rhetorical>

BTW, the inability to reliably receive e-mail is not restricted to commercial ISPs.   I've had my go 'rounds with a specific .GOV site.  Unfortunately the users there have no choice.

/Pete

At 15:15 07/10/2000 Monday, Thaxton, Dennis wrote:

>        First of all, regardless of what we may or may not feel about the
>size of AOL and its' responsiveness to its customers, suggesting to my
>subscribers that they switch to another ISP is not an option.  I am a
>representative of the U.S. Navy, and therefore of the federal government,
>and it is not in my, nor the government's, best interest to dictate to the
>general public what software they must use to receive the Navy News Service
>(NNS).  Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing!  This is, after all, a
>newsletter that is subscribed to by and large by the general public, both
>within as well as outside of the United States.  It has nothing to do with
>mission critical email systems.  It has everything to do with trying
>everything within my power to see to it that the general public is provided
>the service that they are requesting from the government.