On Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 11:54:17AM -0600, Adam Bailey wrote:
> It's not even a matter of that. There are plenty of mailers which do not
> violate standards that have a small RAM footprint. In fact, your argument
> rather mirrors those who say it's okay to use HTML in email.
I think you've missed my point - and by the way, no, I *don't* think
my argument mirrors that of those who want to use HTML in email.
My point is screamingly simple: users who sign up for high-volume
mailing lists should ensure that they have the resources (whatever
those might be: network bandwidth, RAM, client software, etc.) to
deal with that. It's our responsibility as list managers to tell
them up front what they're getting in for, so that they can make
a responsible and informed decision about whether to sign up or not;
but it is not our responsibility to solve their problems if they
make the wrong decision.
Further, it's each end-user's responsibility to figure out that if they
sign up for, say, 100 mailing lists, that they ought to have the
resources on hand to cope with that without demanding that 100
list admins change their way of doing things to accomodate them.
This is not to say that list managers can't choose to accomodate
these sorts of users -- some have and will decide to try to assist
these users, for varying reasons. In Karen's case, it's in part
because she feels that the return for her efforts could greatly
outweight the cost of those efforts. That's fine.
However, the fact that she's going "above and beyond" does not create
in me any sense of obligation to do the same.