Well put Bill - I understand bandwidth issues as I recently dealt with this
on the domain and figured out a way around. I truly hate to see a good
thing, such as this list sacrifice anything. This problem has frustrated
the crap out of me for a couple weeks, I noticed the new URL's at the
bottom of the message but don't recall an admin message explaining the
differences and what we need to start doing to make things work. After
replying to messages and not seeing them appear for a week or so, made me
starting thinking--maybe its not just me. I personally have seen the daily
message counts go down , which is the administrative goal, but information
sacrifices. Sorry but I see new members joining, unknowing of the new rules
getting frustrated and leaving, I read the latest monthly reminder and it
makes no mention of the new rules. Mark I know these servers reside in your
residence, from what I recall, and understand you have to do what you have
to do to make things work and cost effective. I have on a couple occasions
sent funds to you during fund raising drives and will continue to support
your efforts. --wayne
At 08:25 PM 1/24/04 -0500, Bill Bailey wrote:
><Begin quote>
>There is no real reason to include the complete text below one's message.
>For example, I have only a few lines of the original message quoted above,
>and indicated as a quote with the leading '>' character. I've edited the
>reply to include only the bit of context neccessary. Quite often the
>subject
>line alone is sufficient context, sometimes you may need to include a
>sentence
>or two to provide proper references to your reply. I really doubt there
>are cases where one needs to include full headers, signatures, and complete
>texts of the original in replies.
><End quote>
>
>Understood it is your server, your bandwidth and you can make the rules. But
>what about when one "jumps" into the middle of a thread and tries to figure
>out what's being discussed? It happens more than you might think I suspect.
>As it's set up now, some messages make no sense at all. A case in point is
>one you sent yourself the other day. The subject as I recall was "History of
>AD trucks" and the entire response was "Tractor URL? This one?" and then you
>clipped a link to a website. I, and I suspect many others, have no idea what
>you were talking about and how tractor websites have anything to do with the
>Advanced Design trucks.
>It's obviously affecting list traffic because posts have dropped since this
>took effect and I hate to see a good a resource such as this dry up.
>As I said your server, your bandwidth, your rules..but this is my opinion
>for the two cents it's worth.
oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
|