From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 606b5f0f4ef99b0d75065942fe38007d77465d38fd1c789abe58264e0c2df422
Message ID: <v02120d06ad34cc164730@[192.0.2.1]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-31 23:51:31 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 07:51:31 +0800
From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 07:51:31 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Noise and the Nature of Mailing Lists
Message-ID: <v02120d06ad34cc164730@[192.0.2.1]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 22:56 1/30/96, Timothy C. May wrote:
>And remember, it's a whole lot easier using filters and reading tools to
>reduce the volume of messages on an active group than it is to get an
>inactive group up to critical mass!
That is true. There is a lot of noise on this list, but there also is a lot
of signal. My growing killfile is doing a rather fine job of separating the
two. The rest can be weeded out manually in very little time.
-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
PGP encrypted mail preferred.
Return to January 1996
Return to “shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)”
1996-01-31 (Thu, 1 Feb 1996 07:51:31 +0800) - Re: Noise and the Nature of Mailing Lists - shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)