[BfB(oG)] egroups as list host

[Jim Buell]

>On a similar note, every time I read the notes on this list and see
>the ad at the bottom, I have this reaction that somehow it's
>inconsistent with the values this group stands for.  Surely there must
>be a better alternative, another place this list can be hosted.
>Prairienet, perhaps?

Good point about the egroups ads, Milt. I had assumed the ads would a 
necessary evil if we want the convenience of a web-augmented discussion 
list, but I could be wrong. We chose egroups mainly because the 
illinoisgreens and indynaderladuke lists had gone with it before - and as 
we're adding members, the previous stopgap alternative of cc:'ing to 50 
people was getting unwieldy. The only generally available alternative I'm 
aware of with similar features to egroups, topica, doesn't append ads but 
the web format for archives is much cruder than egroups'.

Maybe Zach could advise us about the feasibility of moving prairiegreens to 
his lists.groogroo.com server. I do admit I'd prefer it if a commercial 
enterprise weren't the keeper of our archives, even though egroups claims 
to be scrupulous about maintaining users' privacy. I agree that Green 
values of 'community based' and 'local control' don't quite match using 
egroups. (I don't think prairienet hosts listservs or other group email 
servers, though, or do they? I'm only aware of their .cmi newsgroups.)

What do others on this list think? Should we look for an alternative to 
egroups?

Jim

(PS. Dada informs me he meant to say $100 Million, not $100 Billion, for 
the ADM fine in his previous post. He was simply too distraught to type 
straight, and such small differences in capital mean little to him anyway.)