Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:02:18 +0100
|
On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:22:15 HNE Jean Bedard <[log in to unmask]> said:
>>Users sign up for digestified rather than immediate delivery with 'SET
>>listname DIGests', which is an alternative to MAIL and NOMAIL. This
>>command is rejected if digests are not available for the list, however
>>if the option is accepted and the list owner subsequently turns digests
>>off, it will be treated like NOMAIL.
>
>May I suggest that, instead of rejecting SET listname DIGEST, it behaves
>like SET listname MAIL, so that it becomes effective when/if the owner
>decides to make it operational?
The only difference is in the very rare case where a list owner first
enables digests, and then decides to disable them after all. In such a
case, I would expect the owner to warn the users abundantly and/or fix
their subscriptions. Furthermore I wanted to avoid complaints from users
with the following scenario: Joe is subscribed to a bunch of lists in
their digested form, and goes on vacations for 2 weeks. Before going away
he sets NOMAIL on all lists. When he comes back he finds out that:
1. He did not get partial digests for the period of time before he set
NOMAIL. Joe thinks he should have got the messages posted before he
sent the SET NOMAIL.
2. After sending a SET MAIL command, he got long digests which included
messages posted while he had SET NOMAIL!
A set of 2 options would make it legitimate for Joe to think that
MAIL/NOMAIL controls which messages are shown to him, and DIGEST/NODIGEST
controls how they are sent. With a single option, digests are an
alternative to MAIL and NOMAIL - a means of getting the messages to you,
and not a means of deciding which messages to show. Joe issues SET NOMAIL
before going on vacations, and SET DIGESTS (not SET MAIL) when he comes
back. At this point he starts getting the digests again, which is
logical.
Eric
|
|
|