On Wed, 28 Jun 1995, Ken Bourbeau wrote:
> kjetilho @
no (Kjetil Torgrim Homme) sed:
> >Kjetil wrote:
> >> Well, at least we can test [the] assertion: that very few lists with
> >> more than 50 subscribers are run manually.
> >I'm fascinated by the subject of manually run lists. Just last
> >night I reluctantly converted a pet list of mine (with 64 recipients)
> >from manual to majordomo administration, which gave me cause to think
> >about list management in general.
My wife and I run a Quilt-related mailing list manually. It currently has
167 subscribers, with approx 10 more I need to add to the list. We went
"up for business" at the beginning of june. Its pretty easy on us, we run
it strickly in digest format only. All that subscribe know this before
they subscribe. Using Pine's Bcc, its pretty easy. Takes me no more then
5 to 10 minutes a day to do the list, most of the time is spent adding
> >I wonder first what others mean when they write that a list is
> >"run manually". Is that a list where administrative requests
> >are handled manually, or one where message distribution requires
> >human intervention?
> >Or are people using "run manually" as a synonym for "administered
We simply export the posts to our home directory in one file, add a
header then read a file into the message. Takes maybe 15 to 30 seconds to
do each group(we have the groups split up in groups of 50 subscribers each).
> out for a bounce format. So the question: when to automate a
> manual list?
When it becomes to much for you to handle. We do approx. 4 to 6 messages
a night, less on weekends.