Re: [atlarge-discuss] "Out of Pocket"/Election status

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 06:58 -0800 2003/03/06, Jan Siren wrote:
>[...]
>It is important to note that the vast majority of entries appear to
>agree
>letter-for letter, as expected.  However, the numbers of entries do
>not
>agree.  Within the first ~one hundred entries, each list has a few
>random
>names that the other lacks.  If my sampling is representative, overall
>>there
>might be from twenty to as many as a hundred such "randomly"
>unduplicated
>names/addresses.  Apart from that, Vittorio's list ends with 30
>entries
>beyond the end of Joop's list.  In my opinion, there is no a priori
>reason >to
>discriminate against any of the unduplicated entries.  The full list
>of
>icannatlarge members, when compiled from both lists, will be somewhat
>over
>1100 entries.

Dear Jan et al.,

Your update is most helpful and we can hope that a majority of
those 1100+ members would be interested in participating in
the upcoming elections and polls.

>I can (given time) compile a complete list of the *unduplicated*
>entries.
>
>However, I lack the tools to create a combined master list, ready for
>use >for
>mass mailing (perhaps Judyth can?).

Like Jan, I will of necessity be "hors de combat" for a few days
due to pressures of work and real life.

Combining the two files and deleting duplicated entries should
not be too difficult, assuming the two are set up more-or-less
similarly. The more differences in database structure, the
longer it takes to combine them but it is easy enough once
they have been combined.

>Nor can I perform a mass mailing, even
>if the combined list were in my possession.  Those tasks may have to
>be >borne by others.

My computing setup wasn't intended for bulk-mailing and I'm not
a fan of spam-friendly bulk-mailing sites. Besides, I'd expect
at least some of our members to be equipped with spam-filters
of one kind or another and some of these are NOT adequately
sophisticated. I've just come across one which automatically
trashes any message containing the word "secret", for example,
which rather handicaps anyone trying to communicate about
running secret ballots! Other filters are much better but
reject mail on a point system which disfavours messages sent
to more than 20 recipients at a time in Bcc, and I can't see
myself having time or disk-space for 50+ separate sendings
of the same message just now.

The alternatives rather depend on the results of my mini-ballot.
If it authorizes transferring the membership list to people
who have their own servers and unlimited access, it should
be possible for one of them to set up a means of automating
an "all-members" announcement-only list which new members
could be added to automatically. If it's left up to Jan and
me, I dare say we could each take half the addresses and send
the desired message text one way or another. I can probably
do the mail-merge if I have to...

Regards,

Judyth


##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de