On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Winship <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
...snip...
> Amen.  I eschew "topics" like the plague.  If subscribers are
> interested in the list the are interested in the *entire* list
> or they are not really interested.
...snip...

This is another of those "YMMV" situations. Most of our 3000+ lists
do not use topics, however, some of our list owners apparently
believe that topics make their lists more usable and useful.

Examples:

* Residence hall and other class-level lists - A number of our lists,
  most notably those for the residence halls, are configured with "FY"
  (First Year), "SO", "JR", and "SR" as topics. Individual subscribers
  are subscribed to the appropriate class-level topic and to "Other".
  When a message is intended for subscribers in one class, it is
  posted with the appropriate topic. When a message is intended for
  all subscribers, it can be posted with "ALL" or without a valid
  topic, since all subscribers receive "OTHER".

* Students who work in the campus computer clusters are subscribed
  to a list owned by the group that manages the clusters. The list
  is configured with a list of topics based on the cluster names.
  Individual student employees are subscribed to the topic(s)
  corresponding to the cluster(s) in which they work. When a message
  is intended for student employees in a specific cluster, the
  corresponding topic is used; when a message is intended for all
  student employees in all clusters, "ALL" is used.

The topics feature can be a very useful tool for managing the flow
of information to list subscribers, particularly on a large, busy
list. If the topics structure makes sense and makes the list more
usable for its members, they will be more likely to use it.

--
Paul Russell
Senior Systems Administrator
University of Notre Dame