Pine controversy

[Al Boss]

Maybe we're looking at the wrong thing.

Our model has always been (correctly, I think) mostly based around
server-side solutions.  Whether we like its interface or not, SCN is
accessible via anything from a TRS-80 to a Cray.  Yet, this
"user-friendly e-mail" discussion is mostly focusing on client-side
solutions.  (I still question the efficacy of defining "user-friendly"
without a representative sampling of the users, but that's another
discussion.)

What would it take to instead adopt a Web-based e-mail model option for
SCN?  These other guys all took our idea of free e-mail, so why don't we
return the favor by exploring inventing our own version of their idea?

* Yes, it'd be a programming challenge.  We have smart people, though;
I'd bet we can do it if we decide it's a priority.
* No, the users and the libraries wouldn't have to configure anything
special on their computers, like POP settings, etc.
* Yes, it'd be resource-intensive.  Any worse than the other long-term
options we've discussed (PPP, mostly)?  Any easier to achieve?  Since
system load would be limited to those who already have a GUI, I'd think
it would by definition hit our servers less than offering SLIP/PPP. 
Which brings us to...
* No, it wouldn't give a graphical interface to people who don't already
have a graphical interface. (That is, if you had no SLIP/PPP or greater
connection, you'd still have text-only access.)  But that's another
discussion, too.

I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason why this is a really bad idea.
Anyone want to torpedo it quickly so we can get back to the e-mail holy
wars?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
END