On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 08:41:31PM -0600, Jeffrey Sharp wrote:
> In my quest to cover every aspect, to think about every permutation of what
> ClassicCmp *could* be in the future, I have yet another question to ask
> ClassicCmp subscribers: What if ClassicCmp were a weblog, in the style of
> Slashdot or Kuro5hin?
>
> I know many of you hold /. in disdain for whatever reason. I am not talking
> about emulating the /. culture; I'm speaking only of its infrastructure,
> purely in terms of being a web app for thread-based discussion.
>
> The basics, as they apply to ClassicCmp, are:
>
> - Posting and reading of messages would be doable from a web browser. An
> email interface could be developed, but it wouldn't be the primary
> method of participation.
No.
> - You would have an account with a username and password.
No, thanks - even more username-password combos to keep track off. One
will end up either reusing those (very dangerous practice) or writing
them down (not much better).
> - Your account would be used for other features on the site, such as
> access to a data archives, using to a buy-and-sell arena, or
> moderating others' posts.
No need for that. Access to the archives should be free. A web-based
marketplace should IMHO not be tighhtly coupled with the list. And
frankly - I don't see the point in moderating posts around. No need to
emulate /.
> Right away, I see several benefits:
>
> - Members can participate from any computer with a web browser. Even lynx.
There are some heretics here - probably a lot more than on other lists -
who don't consider the WWW to be The Ultimate Interface (TM). And for good
reason. I get/send my mail in nice handy batches via UUCP (although not
via direct UUCP, but UUCP over TCP encrypted with SSL). EMail can be
read (and replied) to at the readers leisure, using whatever tool (mutt,
a very good textmode MUA in my case) prefers for the job. All the web
mailers I've seen so far just plain suck, _especially_ when compared to
good textmode MUA. The interface is slow, inflexible and just doesn't
scale. I'm handling around 300-500 mails a day (skimming some, reading
the interesting ones completely) - easy and quick task with the right
tool but tedious work with a webinterface. And don't get me started on
handling large folders (== 20000 mails and up - some lists are _very_
aktive) with bad tools (web interfaces or GUI MUAs).
> - Anonymity and privacy can be more well-respected. The 'sender' of a
> post is your username, not your email address. A system can be
> implemented where another member can discover your email address only
> after you give them permission to do so.
Anonymity is seldom needed on mailinglists like this one and if it is,
one should use proper tools, not try to hide behind this kind of flimsy
screen.
> - There's no worry about HTML, attachments, wierd character sets, spam,
> virii, or cctech moderation delay.
You'll strip all that crap out then? Fine. If not, things get worse.
> - Your inbox receives less clutter.
There are tools to deal with _that_ problem. For me, procmail does a
great job sorting incoming mail into the right folders automatically -
including dealing with spam (which gets tagged by SpamAssassin on my
mailserver and dumped by procmail into a temporary holding folder).
> - You spend less bandwidth on mail.
And ten times as much on web traffic, right.
> - With thread titles on the front page, casual web visitors will be more
> tempted to subscribe.
Can be done without messing up the list. Just subscribe a bot to the
list, let it capture the thread titles and put them on a web page. Just
a little bit of Perl will do that for you.
> - It scales well as more members join and start posting.
Mailing lists scale a lot better.
> - The forum *is* the archive.
Making an automatic archive is _trivial_: subscribe an archiving bot,
thats what I've done with one of the lists SWMBO reads. In come the
mails from the list, you get whatever archive you want (flat mbox,
threaded webinterface, database, whatever).
> - Features you want can be added in code, quickly. The current setup is
> great for turn-key mailing lists and such, but it is tough to extend.
What features are _needed_ that can not be done with the mailinglist?
> The bad points I see are:
>
> - It's a huge change from the status quo.
And an unnecessary one to boot.
> We may lose some members.
No. We _will_ lose members.
> - Some people may find mailing lists more comfortable. Of course, an email
> interface to the weblog could be developed.
How about a one way gateway from the mailingliste to the web? A bot
subscribed to the mailinglist updating a web-archive of the list.
> What is your opinion? Let's answer this one in-list, please.
Sorry to rain on your idea - but I don't think it is a good idea.
Regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
Received on Fri Jan 17 2003 - 09:57:00 GMT