Eric; On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 06:45 -0700, Eric Fort wrote: Thanks for the information, as I don't receive digests so I wouldn't have seen this. -- 73 de Brian Rogers - N1URO email: <n1uro(a)n1uro.ampr.org> Web: http://www.n1uro.net/ Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/ Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org Linux Amateur Radio Services axMail-Fax & URONode AmprNet coordinator for: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

My opinion on replying to a digest message is somewhat harsh, so if you like digest, you may not want to read further ... On 2014-09-12 07:37, Brian Kantor wrote: I understand the desire to reduce the amount of eMails that one receives, although I'm not convinced of its effectiveness. I don't have any problem with people *receiving* digests. I do have a problem with people *replying* to them: 1. First, the majority of those who reply, forget to change the subject. As a result, everyone has to read at least part of the message in order to see if they are interested. That's passing the burden to everyone else on the list. *The whole purpose* of an "on topic" subject line is to allow readers to select which messages they want to read. 2. Second, if one replies to a message in a digest, they have no idea if someone else has made a similar reply, after the digest was constructed. That just wastes everyone's time. Now, here comes the harsh part: I consider replying to a digest, to be a self-centered act. As a result, *I ignore all messages with a digest subject*. This also has the salutary effect of causing me to skip some of the irate responses to this message ...