I'm fairly new to SAS, and have recently subscribed to the L after
having followed it for a short while on Google groups. Since I can't
login to my home ISP's NNTP service for usenet at work, it seemed
easiest to set up another email account and subscribe directly to the list.
I've been following this thread and a similar one a few weeks ago with
some amusement. I've been a regular participant in newsgroup discussions
for many years now, but never mailing lists before now, so I'm quite
baffled by such a small posting limit. It looks to me like a system
that was designed in the early 1990's and has outgrown itself at the
As someone new to SAS, I'm thrilled to have such a resource available.
I'd hate to be cut off from valuable information because of an
"obnoxious thread" that most of us have no control over. Why punish
everyone for the acts of a few ill-conceived posters? And why create
the need to berate those who create topics that are less than completely
Email is cheap, especially when it's text-only. There are thousands of
email clients that can organize messages into threads and otherwise make
it easy to determine what is worth reading and what isn't.
I know this doesn't address the possibility of malware, etc. But A 150
message limit does nothing more to stop this than a 300-500 message
Mike Rhoads wrote:
> My quick take:
> 1. There still needs to be some limit, for the reason that Venky and
> others have mentioned. It provides some protection against viruses,
> loops, or other pathological events, even if these are rare.
> 2. The limit should be higher than it is now -- maybe 200 or 250.
> Seems to me that we should seldom if ever hit the limit in the course of
> "normal" list activity.
> I'd hate to see the list subdivided, because there is so much interplay
> among the various possible topics. SQL and macro frequently intersect,
> for instance.
> Mike Rhoads