Here are a few comments, based on the various messages we have seen
recently on LsTown and in private mail to me, regarding the Owner Digest.
 
First, the person who is actually using our Owner Digest likes it
VERY much.  That is the most important thing!
 
On the flip side, someone told me once in private mail that there might
be some RFC restriction that did not allow the mail agent like listserv to
directly modify the "envelope" - that is, the message body.  If that is
true, then listserv could NOT truncate the large error messages.  That is
unfortunate, as that is what we really need.  Without truncation, you can
make your own Owner digest right now - using the Notifications and
Errors-To keywords that exist already in listserv, and adjusting the list
of owners to define where owner mailbox mail goes.
 
On Sat, 20 Jan 1996, Nicolas Graner wrote (Re: listowner defining what
patterns of errors are handled in what way, with keyword control):
> Wouldn't this satisfy everyone, and be trivial to implement?
 
Wow!  Eric ought to hire this guy!  :)  There ought to be a
"Law of Software" which states, "Nothing is Trivial to implement".
 
But, I like the way you are thinking, Nicolas.
 
The Owner Digest is a good idea, and would be better if it was done by
Listserv, with keywords as Nicolas suggested, to fully configure it.
And no points charged for setting up a 2nd list.
 
Many owners would use it.  Let me give you one example.  The Owner Digest
I created gave 4 messages recently to the main owner; without the digest,
she would have received over 100 separate messages in her inbox.  Of the
4 Owner Digest messages, 3 were immediately deletable as they all
contained the same type of error; one bad apple on a busy list.  It just
seems easier to manage this way, than an inbox.
 
On Unix, if your inbox is large, then response time is slowed because the
Inbox is essentially 1 single file; so the smaller that is, the faster
Pine will run.  And when new messages come in, if they are large (like a
100K digest in the form of an error message) your system slows down as
the Inbox file is locked and rewritten (excuse me if I get the terms
wrong... but that is the general process).  So it is not just storage space,
it is also your time as you sit their and work on stuff.  At least, this
is how it seems to work on the system I am on.
 
I do believe that it will help the most for small to medium sized lists,
not for large ones.  It will help the list where there is just 1
owner who does everything, and needs more efficiency.
 
It also helps the list with multiple owners, as they can all sub to the
Owner Digest and so they can all keep tabs on the list.
 
One person mentioned they did not like the notifications mixed with the
errors; one more thing for a keyword, basically.  And if you are setting
up your own Owner Digest, via a new list, then it it up to you where the
Notifications go.
 
Regarding the size of error messages, such as a max-size digest that
some kind service like AOL so conveniently returns to us... I use a mail
filter to chop off all but the first 60 lines, and then that message goes
into the Onwer Digest.  But anyone on unix and hopefully on other
platforms can setup a mail filter, so actually if the size of messages is
a problem then you can cut them all off before they appear in your
Inbox.  I use the Elm filter, but procmail is another one.  So You don't
need an "Owner Digest" to chop off your messages.   But setting up a mail
filter is not so easy.
 
Many accounts have a size limit, including most unix accounts; it is
anywhere from 5 megs to 30 megs from what I have seen on commercial unix
providers.  So if you get a lot of max-size digests back as error
messages, it might put you over the top and then you are paying $$ for
your inbox being too large.  Probably not a huge fee, but still it seems
a waste to have digests in messages.  My account is 5 meg and I never
seem to be able to keep it under that anyway.
 
Regarding the 'appropriateness' of LSoft working on this, while I can
see that people might discuss priorities of different needs, it is very
hard for me to understand how someone might say it is not appropriate
(I am not quoting here, just my interpretation of some of the thread).
Listserv already has a lot of stuff in it to deal with error messages; so
it is entirely appropriate to discuss new features for that area.  And
many listowners might spend more time handling error messages than
almost any other task.  In the long term, there will always be error
messages, and even if Listserv understood them all I would still want
control over some.  Like a full mailbox; I don't delete a user the first
day that happens (but some list owners do).  The individual list owner needs
to have control over that kind of situation.
 
As the internet grows, and the number of providers grow, the overall
errors will *increase*.  Which sounds to me like it is entirely appropriate
for our tools to *increase* (improve), over time.
 
Kevin
 
P.S. If RFC's prevent LSoft from directly modifying the message body,
     would there be any other more 'subtle' way for LSoft to provide
     an email 'forwarding' service that did message truncation?  If that
     were a part of listserv itself, then the list owners that wanted an
     Owner Digest could use that at their own site.  Just send the
     errors through this truncation mailbox (but it is the list owner
     doing the forwarding, so LSoft would not be responsible).
 
     Is this possible?
 
================================================================
              Kevin J. Sinclair = [log in to unmask]
================================================================
Projects: List owner for the Grateful Med mailing list, and also
SickKids and CaringKids mailing lists.  You can also see our kid
authored encyclopedia on the web at the URL:
                http://rdz.stjohns.edu/kidopedia
================================================================