Marc Brande writes:
>If anyone wants to unsubscribe from the sd3d (UCSD) email reflector, I will
>help to do it. Please email me directly. I'm sorry for error messages,
>duplicate messages, etc. but we have had problems internally.
 
 
I think this approach is totally the wrong way around. The sdsc reflection
isn't as bad as some noise-sources on mailing-lists but local problems from
any site should simply not be allowed to impact the subscribers of a
mailing-list. In this case people don't subscribe to the confocal list to
knowingly join the reflector, and should *not* have to deal with *it* to
silence problems of *its* making.
    As is apparent from several msgs here (and I'm sure many people didn't
bother adding their voices - I know at least two), those reflections have
caused many people to wonder whether their postings were even getting out
to the confocal subscribers. The reflections are phrased in a way that
sounds like a general problem.
 
My vote is to give the sdsc people a brief chance to clean up their act,
but failing that to simply pull their subscription. Unfortunately that's
often the only realistic approach to keep a list running smoothly.
 
Marc, I understand you're trying to offer a service to others, but the
cost/benefits to subscribers of the confocal list seems negative.
 
Any comments/thoughts/objections? I've seen the downside of the reflector
but would be interested to hear of benefits to confocal subscribers.
 
cheers,
Danny Thomas
 
 
PS this is wandering a bit off the confocal turf but is relevant in this
context. I had (have?) a subscription to the sd3d list and it had probably
the lowest S/N ratio of any mailing-list I've been on - the number of
sub/unsub requests going out to the mailing-list was many times that of
real postings. This is not meant as a flame because I basically switched
off that list.
 
 
PPS (on a hiding-to-nothing by mentioning this)
    we run a local exploder here, apparently without causing problems to others.