Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:07:31 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Many lists, many email adresses, less volume than Avri though (geez
!!!), many, many google alerts and rss feeds.
Wouldn't mind another.
Nicolas
On 11/17/2011 5:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Saw a thought on the NCUC-Exec list:
>
>> It may be insightful for one/all calling for additional lists to indicate
>> how many policy development process lists they would be on, just to compare
>> and contrast e-loads?
> for me?
>
> about 25 lists for ICANN
>
> more that that for the IETF
>
> only about half dozen for the IGF
>
> ….
>
> i receive somewhere around1000+ messages per day
> skim 100's
> read scores.
>
> and some mailboxes i only get to a weekly basis or even monthly basis.
> some even more rarely than that
> - only when I hear something interesting is going on.
>
> modern mail systems are gems at organizing it all just the way i like it.
>
> so iam always in favor of additional lists.
> though i think people should not copy many lists on one email.
> but there are even filters for weeding out duplicates.
>
> i can live with it either way.
> but if i had a vote i vote to let a thousand mailing lists bloom.
>
> avri
|
|
|