* Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com&gt; writes: I didn't. But I unsubscribed to that list ages ago because it was 99.9% spam. I wouldn't be surprised if most people did the same. -- |---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---| | XEmacs - The only _______ you'll ever need. | | Fill in the blank, yes, it's THAT good! | |----------------------------------&lt;steve(a)youngs.au.com&gt;---|

SY> I didn't. But I unsubscribed to that list ages ago because it SY> was 99.9% spam. Sure. That's because the posting rate was essentially zero; if one spam and no real posts get through, that's 100% spam but not an excuse for unsubscribing, IMO. I was subscribed throughout, and I suppose I got maybe 5-10 spams a month. (Yes, I do have a good idea because I keep them _all_ until they've been addressed in the filters---xemacs mail is short-circuited around my personal filters.) This is an XEmacs process problem, not a spam problem, as far as I'm concerned. xemacs-design is just underused. SY> I wouldn't be surprised if most people did the same. Doesn't seem to be the case. I don't think that list ever went about 350 subscribers that I saw; as Adrian says, it's 304 now. Of those, about 40% are no-mail, which I think is a reasonable response to getting no real posts for months on end. However, the great majority of those no-mails are addresses I have _never_ seen before. Sure, we don't want to turn off the lurkers if we can avoid it, but the evidence that people who care by and large stayed subscribed _and_ receiving mail, despite the negligible rate of posts. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.