Re: huge lists
On 22 Oct 1998 16:38:50 -0500, john@dhh.gt.org wrote:
>Steve Lamb writes:
>> You have a connection now, obviously, else you wouldn't be writing to me,
>> correct?
>> Shell provider.
>> Telnet.
>And a monthly fee for the shell provider in addition to that for the ISP.
Right. Can we maintain some history on this? I don't believe you're
that dense.
>But when did I ever say I wanted a shell account? I merely observed that
>I and many others had no choice of ISP's. A shell account accessible only
>over the net would solve none of the problems I have with BrightNet.
This thread started with someone complaining about how unmanagable
(meaning costly, lord knows how that happened) the lists were. I suggested
filtering. Someone else piped up that server-side filtering isn't always an
option because they don't have access to the server. I said to change. You
pointed out that people didn't have much of an option.
So the point is this: You *DO* have an option. *IF* you were paying per
minute charges and if the lists got to a point where it was getting quite
costly to get them all *AND* you didn't have access to a local ISP that
offers shells for server-side filtering you can always get an account at a
shell provider. That, by its very nature, gives you a shell, which gives you
server-side filtering.
See the train of thought yet? The final part is this. Is it worth it to
the individual to pay extra for a shell from a shell provider to have server
side filtering. Well, if they can reduce their phone bill by, say,
$20/month, doesn't it make sense to pay $11.95 to a shell provider, filter,
and save $8.05/month? Maybe not. But what if the reduction were $50? $100?
There are ALWAYS options. You may not LIKE them, or may not see the
value in them, but they are there. Even for people stuck out in BFW.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: