Bruce Nevin (950726 11:48 EST) --
I think it's a mistake.
Filtering should be on the input end (message receivers), not on the output
end. To facilitate this, put the string "Tech" in headers for a technical
list (if that's the occasion of objection leading to the split proposal).
I would continue on both lists, and might very likely read a post on list A
and send a response to list B by mistake, or send to both because the topic
seems to me to bridge both, but subscribers exclusively to one list would
not know the antecedent conversation on the other list. Various other
confusions will develop.
Instead, make it easy for readers to categorize mail and discard what they
don't want. Put program code all in one message with "Code" in the header,
say.
If the problem is members who download batches of mail to PCs over modems,
I understand there is software that filters mail by user-defined criteria.
I believe some software of this sort is available in the public domain.
I don't know the situation there. If it helps to download a fewer large
files rather than many small files (reducing download time), the subscriber
should set listserv to send digests once a day. There is public-domain
de-digestifying software.
Splitting the list is a crude method of doing the sorting at the listserv
end, one that forces its side effects on everyone. Maybe more sophisticated
means exist in the listserv software, analogous to specifying single
messages vs. daily digests--e.g. "block all mail with "Code" in the
header".
Splitting the list is a bad idea for social and communication reasons, as
suggested by Brian Gaines <gaines@CPSC.UCALGARY.CA> (Tue, 25 Jul 1995).
Bruce E. Nevin Cisco Systems, Inc.
+1-508-262-1120 LightStream ATM High End Business Unit
+1-508-262-1039 (FAX) 1100 Technology Park Drive
bnevin@cisco.com Billerica MA USA 01821