Re: lynx-dev List housecleaning on May 4th

[Laura Eaves]

> From: Philip Webb <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 10:17:24 -0400 (EDT)
>...
> isn't it really rather too drastic to force everyone to resubscribe?
> i don't want to be critical of our kind host,
> but has he thought thro' the problems which lynx-devers have raised?
>
> wouldn't it be less labor in total for someone (not necessarily BEI)
> to extract the subscribers who haven't posted to lynx-dev since eg 980101
> & ask them alone to resubscribe under some formula?
> i don't know how many fancy devices  majordomo  itself offers,
> but a simple script must be easy to construct to extract them.
>
> there are  237  subscribers, of whom i recognise  c 65 ,
> incl myself, BEI & the Archive, so some pruning is clearly justified.

Excuse me if this is a dumb question, but why is it
necessary to "clean" the list at all?  Assuming you already weed out
undeliverable addresses now and then, why assume that the addresses
that remain shouldn't be there?  There is nothing wrong with lurking.
--le