to the list owner(s)

[Matthew Flaschen]

Billie Erin Walsh wrote:
> Clutter up their online e-mail in-box with all the stuff they download 
> and filling up their ISP's e-mail server with all the old mail they have 
> already downloaded and read.

Imagine those crazy people tormenting their ISP's mail servers so.
Imagine the server's burden, weighed down with mail from 1999. Who's
really crazy here, the person that wants to backup mail in two places,
or the person who thinks we shouldn't get what we're paying for?

> Some people DO: [ GASP ]
> 
> Download their e-mail from the server and delete off the server.

I do this too!  Gasp!

> Read the e-mail that comes in

I don't even read all the email that comes in.  Does that make me even
more anal-retentive?  Gasp!

 AND:
>     Keep the bits and pieces that they feel important.
>     Respond to what they feel they must.
>     DELETE everything else.

I don't exactly see why it matters who archives their mail permanently ,
and who doesn't.  The issue here is filtering the mail as it first comes
in.  Any competent email program, online or offline, can filter list
mail.  What you then do with the list mail is your choice.  You can scan
it and delete uninteresting mail immediately.  You can save it to read
later.  You can read and answer everything immediately (if you're very
unwise).  And it's your choice what to do with the mail when you're done
with it.

> Read their mail online from their ISP deleting as they go.

And competent webmail providers can do filtering too, so this is a
non-issue.

> [ I know this may be hard for some to believe but they do ]
> 
> Of the hundred or so e-mail lists I'm on there are only two or three 
> that don't identify in the subject line. Not identifying is NOT "The 
> Standard".

What you call "not identifying" I would call "not mangling the subject
line", since the list is identified in dozens of other ways (which are
specified by real standards like RFC2919).

> Now IF someone could give the OP a _REAL_, non-personal opinion, 
> non-emotional, answer to her question it might be nice.

The answer to the OP's question, is "Yes it's possible", but we're not
going to do it because it's annoying.

> GEEZ, just jump on a person for asking a simple question.

I don't think anyone jumped on anyone.  Rather, we explained politely
why this feature isn't desirable.  You're the only one so far who I
think has been rude.

Matt Flaschen