Ask Slashdot: Best Solution For an Email Discussion Forum?

John3 writes "For the past 15+ years I've maintained The Hardlines Digest (URL omitted to reduce the /. effect), an email discussion list for members of the retail hardware and lumber business. Since the beginning I've run the list on a Windows box running Lyris Listmanager, and it's worked admirably over the years. However, the list now has over 2,600 members and Listmanager doesn't have a nice web interface for users that like to read via their browser. Listmanager also doesn't handle attachments and HTML formatting well for the daily 'digest' version of the discussions. Finally, I'd really like to move hosting off-site so I don't need to maintain the server. The list members are hardware store owners and many are technically challenged, so I need to keep change to a minimum and make it easy for them to migrate. I've considered Google Groups and that seems to have most of the features I need. Are there any other low cost solutions for hosting a large discussion list?"

Comments

I used yahoogroups

[cpu6502]

(Formerly egroups.com and onelist.com.) Members can continue receiving emails if they prefer that method of delivery, as I do, or they can read directly on the web. It also allows for the storage of files and photos in the group

Re:I used yahoogroups

[Idbar]

I agree. I had another group on Google and the features from the yahoo groups have always been above. Of course the threading from Google is really neat, but yahoo offers even polls, makes photo albums easier among others.

Re:I used yahoogroups

[ibennetch]

I ran a couple of groups on Yahoogroups a few years ago and it was nothing but a hassle. Sure, the feature list sounds great, but in implementation things needed constant attention. End users would report not receiving any mail for days or weeks at a time (no, it wasn't even in their spam folders; they just disappeared) and logging in/creating accounts was sometimes problematic. At least at the time, there were three ways to add a user: I could add their email address, they could send an email to group+subscribe@yahoogroups.com, or they could create a yahoo account and join through the web interface. Choosing either of the first two options left their account in some sort of half-created limbo where they got the group email but weren't able to sign in to the web interface (to change settings, view photos, etc). There were other minor issues, but those were the two I constantly fought against.

All that being said, it wasn't the worst service I've ever used and it was free, but I was always waiting for the next breakage or issue that would require my manual intervention. They could have greatly improved the service since then; it's been about two years since I migrated away, but I wouldn't personally recommend it. We miss some of the features (the two you mention, file storage and photo sharing), but I'm glad to be rid of the administrative workload.

Try Dlang's forum

[Twinbee]

The D programming language people have successfully combined a mailing list and tradition web forum into one. What's more, the web forum is lightning fast to boot (fastest ever forum I've ever used - why can't phpBB etc. be that fast?).

The exact specifics are unknown to me, but from what I've heard, they've done a terrific job:
http://forum.dlang.org/

Re:Try Dlang's forum

[Bill Dimm]

The actual forum software is apparently here, and is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License.

Re:Try Dlang's forum

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet Jesus Fuck that is fast.

Re:Try Dlang's forum

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you were just being a jerk, but hot damn that's incredible, even opening the forum with 16,000+ topics and a topic with 60 replies is lightning fast.

Re:Try Dlang's forum

[gnapster]

(fastest ever forum I've ever used - why can't phpBB etc. be that fast?).

Indeed. More to the point, why can't slashdot be that fast?

Re:Try Dlang's forum

[rgbrenner]

D is based on C...

I develop web apps in C (and postgresql on freebsd), including a forum for a site called tuxforums (shutdown a couple of years ago)... and they are just as fast as that forum... you hardly even have to try. GCC takes care of most of the optimizations.. you just have to avoid doing anything really stupid (as far as resources go)

http://www.osdisc.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi/index.html

Average page generation time for that page: 17ms
Average page gen time for the entire site: 58ms

The downsides of using C are that it's C.

Re:Try Dlang's forum

[Twinbee]

Vladimir Panteleev (aka CyberShadow) has mentioned some of the reasons why it's so fast at ycombinator:

* Optimized and deflated static resources
* Deflated HTML output
* SQLite prepared statements
* Integrated HTTP server (although it's currently in front of an Apache proxy)
* An optimized string builder (https://github.com/CyberShadow/DAppenderResearch)
* RAM cache of frequent DB queries

A Reddit story exists too where he speaks more about it:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ppre5/the_new_d_online_forum_software_written_in_d/#c3rhk2i

Re:Try Dlang's forum

[ralphdaugherty]

I had to try it with a response like that. It started out very responsive but hung after I clicked on Discussion Index and tried the link for Google Summer of Code link. Tried backing out to a couple of pages but links hang.

It's the way a good technical discussion forum should be but if used by typical users with all the image overhead they bring with them and the hangups of typical links to ad sites it would be slowed down like the rest of them.

Still alive

[betterunixthanunix]

Usenet is still alive and still a popular place for technical and political discussions. There are several free Usenet servers out there.

One nice thing about Usenet is that there is no single point of failure.

Re:Still alive

[theshowmecanuck]

If they're wanting to get their porn at the same time as talk about their business, then it might be a good idea. Valid point though. Mine. No yours I mean. ;) Too bad experience has had to make the process so onerous.

Aside from that, it isn't really a good idea in this case. The OP mentioned that the users are somewhat technically challenged. Most people are unaware of usenet. Most wouldn't know how to go about connecting to an account. Yes it is no more difficult than setting up an email account but most people can't set up an email client if it isn't automated for them. As well, most home and/or business internet accounts these days have stopped including usenet access. So the OP's users would have to spend more money to subscribe to a usenet service when there are free alternatives. As much as I like to hear about someone wanting to add to what I consider the legitimate side of usenet, this is a case where it isn't a good solution.

I still consider usenet to be the home of the true programming geek. :D. But even this is slowly dying. The funny thing is that over the years, it is the one forum that hasn't really ever disappeared. Unlike so many of the popular internet forums of the day which come and go over the years (usually as the site owners try to commercialize them). You'd think that usenet would be a favoured forum if only because of its stability. But then again, the lack of access from home and business internet accounts is partly to blame. The perception that I joked about that it is only a place for porn or pirated films and music is another. Ah well.

Re:Still alive

[westlake]

Usenet is still alive and still a popular place for technical and political discussions. There are several free Usenet servers out there.

The problem here is that the target audience is the owner of a small hardware store --- who will almost certainly find a Usenet client unfamiliar, awkward and intimidating.

Re:Still alive

[betterunixthanunix]

Yes I know, and Google Groups hardly counts as a useful or decent Usenet client. My point was just that Usenet is not "20 years ago," although perhaps the discussions and general atmosphere of Usenet has declined since the early 90s...

Re:Still alive

[DERoss]

Voting by the general using public is no longer required. The Big8 Management Board makes the decision, Go to http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Main_Page and read the links under "Core Information about the Newsgroup Creation Process".

The benefit of a Big8 (comp.*, news.*, sci.*, humanities.*, rec.*, soc.*, talk.*, and misc.*) newsgroup or even an alt.* newsgroup outside of the Big8 is that you are not tied to any one specific service or to any one specific application on your computer. (If you choose the Big8, your newsgroup would likely fall in the talk.* category.)

Mailman is likely the best available

[Arrogant-Bastard]

Mailman is not without its faults (which is why 3.X is under development and shows considerable promise) but 2.X is stable, scalable, portable, easy to use from both the web-based GUI and the command line (my preference), complies with relevant standards (such as RFCs 2142, 2369 and 2919), behaves sensibly under duress, integrates well with multiple MTAs, and makes it easy to handle migrations such as yours (by doing a mass invite followed by confirmed opt-in). This is why it's largely supplanted its competitors, particularly majordomo, which was the tool of choice for many years for a LOT of mailing lists. I suspect that it will further eat into the mindshare of similar packages once 3.X is out.

Yahoogroups is a poor choice: it's notoriously unstable, completely insecure, and relies on Yahoo's horribly-maintained email infrastructure, which has been completely overrun by abusers for a decade. Googlegroups is marginally better, although it is also a massive source of spam (best practice on Usenet is to drop all Google-originated articles), it does not comply with standards, and attempts to contact a competent, responsive postmaster yield nothing.

Your best course of action is likely to lease the cheapest (reputable) host that you can find and install Mailman on it. This not only keeps control firmly in yours hands (thus insulating you from the vagaries of third parties) but it also keeps your options open for the future.

Re:Mailman is likely the best available

[subreality]

+1 Mailman, but with reservations. I run a large Mailman list and everything you said is true: it can handle large lists gracefully. That doesn't just mean performance. That means handling bounces properly, regex filters to catch things that need to go to the moderation queue, and all the other advanced stuff required for a large list.

However, it's very much a traditional mailing list setup, and that's not what the OP was asking for. It has web-based archives, but they're read-only - you can't do things like click "reply to this" on the web and follow up like you do in a web forum. My userbase is technical, but even still I have a minority that hates having to use an email client, and they do have some good points: in a mail client, you can only see what's in your inbox, not the whole thread. This results in excessive quoting, which just makes things ugly. So you either have to switch back and forth to the archives, or leave stuff in your inbox that you don't intend to reply to, or sort it into folders (automated filtering is really beyond most people). That's extra load for them, and they just want to go to the thread on their web browser. That's where Google and Yahoo excel. Unfortunately they come with all the downsides you mention.

Re:Mailman is likely the best available

[Arrogant-Bastard]

If your users can't see the whole thread, or if they're engaging in excessive quoting, the problem isn't Mailman nor is it the use of a traditional mailing list: the problem is their choice of client and their inability to use it propertly. Solid email clients combined with best practices facilitate both these tasks, as we see everyday on many mailing lists.

To put it another way: mailing lists (and Usenet) are still, far and away, the very best discussion vehicles we have. They work beauitfully, which is why all the serious work of running and developing the 'net happens on them (e.g., linux-kernel, nanog, and so on). But making this happen requires a sensible choice of client and a small investment in learning how to use it in order to communicate effectively. Otherwise we find top-posting, full-quoting imbeciles who are often the same people whining about their lack of utility, when the problem is staring them in the mirror every morning.

Web forums -- and I have used hundreds of them, including this one, since web forums have existed to use -- are vastly less useful. For example: how shall I CC myself a copy of my own comments here today so that I can reference it in the future?

majordomo ?

[Lisias]

http://www.greatcircle.com/majordomo/

Google Groups is okay, but...

[hodma727]

I use it myself with a social group of 40 or so. I occasionally worry if they'll decide to add it to their growing list of abandoned offerings, which is probably a consideration for you too. More annoyingly, like most Google offerings, the interface is pretty crap so I can't imagine it would be enjoyable managing a list your size ;-)

"NO" to Google Groups

[jtara]

Don't foist Google Groups on your users.

Unfortuantely, it seems to be the default choice for tech-support forums. And it seems particularly poorly-suited for that task.

The bigget problem is not that it is way behind other forum software (it is) but the "cowboy" mentality of whoever pushes out a new version seemingly daily. It works one day, then it doesn't the next. Fortunately, with the daily release schedule, then it works again a few days later, but then it's different, and you have to figure out how to use it again.

Quick Plug for FUD

[Shaman]

Just a quick and dirty plug for FUDForum. Real forum, with NNTP and mailing list integration tools. Very fast, flexible attachment abilities and can convert any thread to PDF.

Re:If the list is public consider MarkMail

[yakatz]

Why would top posting be a problem?

On Monday June 18, 2012 at 08:44PM, nullchar said:
From the summary, it appears all the current members know how to email already (though I'm sure top-posting is a problem).

Mailman

[andyring]

'nuf said.

Mailman is about as simple as they come. I maintain several mailman lists, a bunch of which were for my church. As I was wanting to get away from being the sole volunteer tech guy for a 1,500-member church, I showed a couple secretaries how to manage the lists. That was 2 years ago and I haven't looked back.

Re:A big wave.

[Wootery]

Don't know why this was downvoted -- this is a legitimate suggestion.

Google Wave (now Apache Wave) is now open-source, so you can deploy your own. In my experience it works nicely, though there are certainly some things to be wary of, like the ability to unaccountably edit other people's submissions.

Sympa

[Stakkato.Dot]

I'm in a similar situation and am evaluating Sympa with a low cost VPS http://www.sympa.org/ It looks to have a good web interface, customizable, and scalable to a decent size. I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Mailman is pretty standard but is dated and not very user friendly. Customization seems difficult.