At 12:21 AM 6/29/96, Brad Knowles wrote:
>At 7:23 AM -0400 6/28/96, Dana Katherine Kressierer wrote:
[snip Brad's discussion of AOL message limits]
Thanks for the info, Brad. I really didn't know that AOL
allowed for so many (~300 to 400) messages to be stored by its
users. My list must just have a lot of AOL people that rarely
check their mail... lucky me! :-/
> Mailing lists that have this kind of traffic should have digests,
>[snip]... should be gatewayed to Usenet newsgroups.
Our list is offered via digest, but we don't force anyone to use
that method. Some people like it (me), others don't, so they
have the option of subscribing via individual, digest or index
setup. Since a significant portion of our members are not
email/net/list enlightened they choose the easiest method...
individual (default) which results in a lot of bounced mail! :-(
As for a Usenet gateway... we are a private list so that is not
an option. There are a lot of NG's that cover our topic, but
for some reason people like the list... even those who can't
keep up with the volume. There is a sense of intimacy that
our members get that they don't find on the NG's (which is really
ironic since we've got ~1200 members - hardly an intimate croud!)
> [snip AOL has 20% of the net population] Compare the
>number of problems you have with our users relative to how many users
>we have, and how many users we have that are subscribed to your list,
>and I think you'll find that our "problem" rate is roughly about the
>same per user as the average for the list.
I will disagree only in that those people who use local ISP's, for
example, need to know a bit more about the 'net/email/etc than does
your average AOL/Compuserve/Wow/Prodigy member, IMO. The 'big' services
come already set up, for the most part, and don't require the user
to know much (if anything!) about how their programs actually work
in order to gain access to the 'net. People who use freenets,
local ISPs, and other non-spoon-fed services often need to know more
about the net and their software just to use the system (hence, they
are less likely to come to me with easily-solved problems).
> What we typically don't have is system-type problems, because if
>we have a problem that stops all mail from getting through, you
>better believe that we hear about it and fix it fast (you really
>don't want to be responsible for losing two or three million
>messages, trust me).
Unfortunately though, I hear about it too. When ever one of the big
systems (and AOL has been guilty of this a few times in the past) has
a mail problem my list gets *flooded* with "Why did you turn off
my mail?" messages from users of the down service. Again, it's just
an indication that the larger systems cater to less net-savvy people...
people who don't necessarily understand how email/lists work, and
don't know to whom they should turn with their problems (you would
not believe how many 'newbies' believe that *I* have something to
do with their email account -- I get requests to find their lost
personal mail, change their account type/size/settings, fix their
software or teach them how to use it, etc.). I think I should start
submitting bills to the online services for whom I give technical
assistance! :-)
[snip, AOL users with full mailboxes are few]
I really did not know this, Brad. I have to admit that we
have problems with many AOL users and bounced mail (but nearly
as bad as our problems with Compuserve and Wow).
> And we could turn this into a profit center, too (of course, we'd
>let users choose to make the smaller limit a "hard" limit, so that
>they couldn't possibly be charged extra). I'll see if I can't take
>this idea to our management, but if you like it as well, I recommend
>you send your comments to "SteveCase@aol.com", as we have a whole
>team of folks who read that mailbox and handle customer suggestions.
Hey... do I get royalties if Steve uses my ideas? How about a job
with AOL? I'm currently on the market... :-)
> The bounces are simply a matter of them just flat screwing up
>their SMTP listener program. As the second-busiest Internet email
>site in the world, problems of this sort are greatly magnified. You
>better believe that we're listening to the problems people are having
>with CompuServe, and we're paying attention (of course, it's my
>belief that we never would have made that mistake in the first place,
>but that's irrelevant to this discussion).
I do agree, and I don't mean to bash AOL as much as I have (in fact,
I think AOL is heads above Compuserve and Wow, at least ITO system
setup). I was unaware of AOL's higher message limit, and think
that ~300 (or whatever) is probably fine. You are right... the
problems of the huge services are magnified (I'd guess that upwards
of 25% of my membership is AOL) when those people are represented
in such large proportions.
I don't know what the solution is. Unlike my boyfriend (Mr. Computer
Programmer/Perl Junkie/'Net Elitist), I think the large services have
done a great job of making the 'net available to the masses and that
this is laudable for the most part. However, like when the AT&T
lines go down for a day... the problems that result from such
huge corporations offering so many people service often makes
'net life unmanageable. Compuserve's refusal to comply with simple
bounced mail conventions, for example, creates total havoc on my
list at times. And when AOL does go down, my mailbox can be
filled for days with AOL users asking me to fix their problems.
So, I still tell people how to find the local guys. The ISP's
who charge flat rates, offer free software, and give unlimited
email/net access. And they cause me a lot less headaches! :-)
Always,
Dana
Dana Katherine Kressierer, cubabe@netset.com
Co-Manager, Adoptees' Internet Mailing List
AIML URL: http://www.webreflection.com/aiml/
Dana's URL: http://www.webreflection.com/staff/dkress/
I'm so glad that you came tonight. I sometimes worry that
no one will show up, and without you, there would be little
point in my being here. - Jane Wagner
Follow-Ups:
|
|
