Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA22350; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:11:40 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:11:17 -0500 Received: from VM.SE.LSOFT.COM by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA22295; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:11:13 -0500 Message-Id: <199603122111.QAA22295@CS.UTK.EDU> Received: from VM.SE.LSOFT.COM by VM.SE.LSOFT.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 7251; Tue, 12 Mar 96 22:12:18 EST Received: from VM.SE.LSOFT.COM (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by VM.SE.LSOFT.COM (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 4505; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:12:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:08:31 EST From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting To: "D. J. Bernstein" , drums@cs.utk.edu, Jim Conklin In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:16:45 +0100 from Jim Conklin On Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:16:45 +0100 Jim Conklin said: >Pipelining _is_ the real world for mailing lists of any size! It's >absolutely essential for large ListProc lists, for example, and used >widely. How can pipelining be absolutely essential for large ListProc lists when the vast majority of target sites, and in particular the large online/ISP sites (AOL alone accounts for over 10% of mailing list traffic), do not support it? I'm sorry but pipelining simply isn't used widely. Eric