5 Nov
2014
5 Nov
'14
7:45 a.m.
As I suspected and alluded to before, there are issues with the list(s) that
were pretty much expected (loss of previous settings of digest mode, as well
as cross posting resulting in duplicates, and in some cases posts showing up
as attachments). Yes, I am aware of these issues.
I just received a post from a listmember about their "patience wearing
thin". To that list member, I suggest you unsubscribe completely from both
lists permanently. Obviously we're not the best choice for them. My patience
is not wearing thin just yet. If yours is. please leave.
Given that the list(s) are at least semi-functional, albeit with some
issues, I switched gears and have been working to get the websites and other
services migrated from the old server to the new server, and am almost
complete with that. Should have the last website migrated by Friday as well
as a few changes that are needed on the main bitsavers repository. After
that, I'll start digging into the remaining issues with list functionality
and then finally we'll start dealing with getting the archives imported
(along with bits that have been missing for a while).
Thanks so much for all your patience folks, we'll get there.
Best,
J
5 Nov
5 Nov
8:40 a.m.
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:45:30AM -0600, Jay West wrote:
[...]
I just received a post from a listmember about their
"patience wearing
thin". To that list member, I suggest you unsubscribe completely from both
lists permanently. Obviously we're not the best choice for them. My patience
is not wearing thin just yet. If yours is. please leave.
That was me. I was originally subscribed to just cctalk but now also receive
unwanted cctech posts, however the mailman subscription management system
believes I am not subscribed to either list and has ignored my attempts to
unsubscribe from cctech. This includes a fruitless attempt to subscribe so
that there's something to immediately unsubscribe from. It's not as if I
haven't *tried* to quietly fix this for myself and not bother you, but it's
outwith my power to do so.
I suspect if I subscribed you to some of my mailing lists without any means of
unsubscription, you'd be likewise somewhat miffed. Perhaps you'd even report
it as spam (which it would be!) or complain to my ISP. The "patience wearing
thin" was my way of saying I'm annoyed but trying to be restrained because
I've
been in your shoes. But if I don't highlight that mailman has failed-unsafe,
how are you to know it needs fixing?
Obviously, as list owner, you can boot me off either or both lists if you so
wish; your server, your rules. I'd prefer you not do that though, and
apologise for the somwhat brusque tone that I used out of frustration.
9:16 a.m.
It was written....
--------------
Obviously, as list owner, you can boot me off either or both lists if you so
wish; your server, your rules. I'd prefer you not do that though, and
apologise for the somwhat brusque tone that I used out of frustration.
---------------
Nah - youre fine, the apologies in order are on my end. My reply was over
the top, my apologies.
J
9:49 a.m.
On 11/5/14 8:40 AM, Peter Corlett wrote:
I suspect if I subscribed you to some of my mailing
lists without any means of
unsubscription, you'd be likewise somewhat miffed.
As long as people are working on the list, can we fix it so that 'reply' and
'reply list' go to different places?
As a reminder to everyone, there is no way currently to just reply to the original
poster, and Mr Corlett may be unaware that EVERYONE saw his reply.
10:03 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Kossow" <aek at bitsavers.org>
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: list issues & status
As a reminder to everyone, there is no way currently
to just reply to the
original poster, and Mr Corlett may be unaware that EVERYONE saw his
reply.
I think when you reply to the original post the sender's address appears in
the Original Message section (unless he/she has opted to suppress it), so
it's just a quick cut & paste, no?
And while I'm at it let me add my thanks to Jay and everyone else involved
in rebuilding and maintaining the two lists (especially cctech).
I guess I'm one of the lucky ones; although there still is the occasional
glitch all I had to do was log in and re-enable digest mode and all's well
once more.
11:12 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Kossow" <aek at bitsavers.org>
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: list issues & status
On 11/5/14 10:03 AM, Mike Stein wrote:
Agreed; it could be more convenient (AFAIK at least in OE you can't just
click on the address and have to cut & paste instead).
I was just picking nits over your " there is *no way* currently to just
reply to the original poster" (*s are mine).
BTW, while I'm thanking Jay & co. let me also thank YOU for the enormous
contribution you've made to this hobby and community: THANK YOU, AL!
it's just a quick cut & paste, no?
Yes, which very few people actually do.
The high number of messages that show up on this list which were intended
to be private tells me there is a problem with the way it currently works. 
2:32 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Kossow" <aek at bitsavers.org>
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: list issues & status
On 11/5/14 10:03 AM, Mike Stein wrote:
I disagree. It's more likely that they hit 'reply', write the
message and before they remember to change the 'to' address
they hit 'send'. I have done it in the past.
For the vast majority that hit 'reply' the intended target
is the list.
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
it's just a quick cut & paste, no?
Yes, which very few people actually do.
The high number of messages that show up on this list which were intended
to be private tells me there is a problem with the way it currently works.
2:46 p.m.
> The high number of messages that show up on this
list which were
> intended to be private tells me there is a problem with the way it
> currently works.
I disagree. It's more likely that they hit
'reply', write the message
and before they remember to change the 'to' address they hit
'send'. I have done it in the past.
For the vast majority that hit 'reply' the
intended target is the
list.
The reason this whole recurring discussion is so annoying is because
it's a lose-lose scenario:
Givens -
1. Sometimes you want to reply to the list, others to the individual
2. No one cares enough, regardless of how much wheedling, cajoling,
badgering, ridicule or abuse you heap upon them, to pay attention to wth
they are doing when they reply.
No setting fixes this, it just chooses between which group gets bit.
How about a nice minicomputer discussion?
De
3:10 p.m.
2. No one cares enough, regardless of how much
wheedling, cajoling,
badgering, ridicule or abuse you heap upon them, to pay attention to
wth they are doing when they reply.
Eh. That's at least a bit unfair to people who _do_ care enough to do
that - I offer myself as an existence-proof-by-example.
They're just not part of the precipitate; they make sure mail goes
where they want and don't get bent out of shape about having to do so,
so you don't hear from them on the subject much.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
10:53 a.m.
On 11/05/2014 10:03 AM, Mike Stein wrote:
I use Thunderbird for cctalk. Isn't an individual reply just a matter
of clicking on the sender's name in the header?
--Chuck
As a reminder
to everyone, there is no way currently to just reply to the
original poster, and Mr Corlett may be unaware that EVERYONE saw his
reply.
I think when you reply to the original post the sender's address appears in
the Original Message section (unless he/she has opted to suppress it), so
it's just a quick cut & paste, no? 
11:07 a.m.
On Wednesday (11/05/2014 at 10:53AM -0800), Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 11/05/2014 10:03 AM, Mike Stein wrote:
I use Thunderbird for cctalk. Isn't an individual reply just a
matter of clicking on the sender's name in the header?
If the list server sent the mail as coming From: the sender and Cc:
to the list, then the reader can do "Reply" to just the sender and
"Reply All" to the list. This should work no matter what the MUA is
and many MUA have their own settable default for Reply vs. Reply All.
Chris
--
Chris Elmquist
As a
reminder to everyone, there is no way currently to just reply to the
original poster, and Mr Corlett may be unaware that EVERYONE saw his
reply.
I think when you reply to the original post the sender's address appears in
the Original Message section (unless he/she has opted to suppress it), so
it's just a quick cut & paste, no? 
11:09 a.m.
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 11/05/2014 10:03 AM, Mike Stein wrote:
I use Thunderbird for cctalk. Isn't an individual reply just a matter of
clicking on the sender's name in the header?
Some of us are using text-based clients like alpine/pine. On the
M.A.R.C.H. list, when I want to issue a private reply, I have to edit the
To: line which quotes the original sender's address, but will send to the
list if you leave it, as is.
Mike Loewen mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://q7.neurotica.com/Oldtech/
As a
reminder to everyone, there is no way currently to just reply to
the
original poster, and Mr Corlett may be unaware that EVERYONE saw his
reply.
I think when you reply to the original post the sender's address appears
in
the Original Message section (unless he/she has opted to suppress it), so
it's just a quick cut & paste, no? 
11:12 a.m.
* Mike Loewen <mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us> [141105 14:09]:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Chuck Guzis wrote:
And some of us use text-based clients like mutt which asks if you want
to send to the Reply-To: address(es) if they don't match the From:
address. If I say no it goes to the From: address.
I can always edit any header field I want though.
So it's all MUA specific as someone else said.
Todd
On 11/05/2014 10:03 AM, Mike Stein wrote:
I use Thunderbird for cctalk. Isn't an individual reply just a matter of
clicking on the sender's name in the header?
Some of us are using text-based clients like alpine/pine. On the
M.A.R.C.H. list, when I want to issue a private reply, I have to edit the
To: line which quotes the original sender's address, but will send to the
list if you leave it, as is. As a
reminder to everyone, there is no way currently to just reply to
the
original poster, and Mr Corlett may be unaware that EVERYONE saw his
reply.
I think when you reply to the original post the sender's address appears
in
the Original Message section (unless he/she has opted to suppress it), so
it's just a quick cut & paste, no? 
11:24 a.m.
yeah i hear ya?. I?m hard core i still use PINE :)
On Nov 5, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Todd Goodman <tsg at bonedaddy.net> wrote:
* Mike Loewen <mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us>
[141105 14:09]:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Chuck Guzis wrote:
And some of us use text-based clients like mutt which asks if you want
to send to the Reply-To: address(es) if they don't match the From:
address. If I say no it goes to the From: address.
I can always edit any header field I want though.
So it's all MUA specific as someone else said.
Todd On 11/05/2014 10:03 AM, Mike Stein wrote:
Some of us are using text-based clients like alpine/pine. On the
M.A.R.C.H. list, when I want to issue a private reply, I have to edit the
To: line which quotes the original sender's address, but will send to the
list if you leave it, as is. > As a reminder to everyone, there is no way
currently to just reply to
> the
> original poster, and Mr Corlett may be unaware that EVERYONE saw his
> reply.
I think when you reply to the original post the sender's address appears
in
the Original Message section (unless he/she has opted to suppress it), so
it's just a quick cut & paste, no?
I use Thunderbird for cctalk. Isn't an individual reply just a matter of
clicking on the sender's name in the header?
11:26 a.m.
anyone really hard core and still uses Elm?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_(email_client)
:-)
On Nov 5, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Charles Phillips <charles at uniwho.com> wrote:
yeah i hear ya?. I?m hard core i still use PINE :)
On Nov 5, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Todd Goodman <tsg at bonedaddy.net> wrote:
* Mike Loewen <mloewen at
cpumagic.scol.pa.us> [141105 14:09]:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Chuck Guzis wrote:
And some of us use text-based clients like mutt which asks if you want
to send to the Reply-To: address(es) if they don't match the From:
address. If I say no it goes to the From: address.
I can always edit any header field I want though.
So it's all MUA specific as someone else said.
Todd On 11/05/2014 10:03 AM, Mike Stein wrote:
>> As a reminder to everyone, there is no way currently to just reply to
>> the
>> original poster, and Mr Corlett may be unaware that EVERYONE saw his
>> reply.
>
> I think when you reply to the original post the sender's address appears
> in
> the Original Message section (unless he/she has opted to suppress it), so
> it's just a quick cut & paste, no?
I use Thunderbird for cctalk. Isn't an individual reply just a matter of
clicking on the sender's name in the header?
Some of us are using text-based clients like alpine/pine. On the
M.A.R.C.H. list, when I want to issue a private reply, I have to edit the
To: line which quotes the original sender's address, but will send to the
list if you leave it, as is. 
11:41 a.m.
Call me when you find someone who still uses /usr/ucb/Mail or Rand MH.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Charles Phillips <charles at uniwho.com> wrote:
anyone really hard core and still uses Elm?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_(email_client)
:-)
On Nov 5, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Charles Phillips <charles at uniwho.com> wrote:
yeah i hear ya?. I?m hard core i still use PINE
:)
On Nov 5, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Todd Goodman <tsg at bonedaddy.net> wrote:
> * Mike Loewen <mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us> [141105 14:09]:
>> On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/05/2014 10:03 AM, Mike Stein wrote:
>>>
>>>>> As a reminder to everyone, there is no way currently to just reply
to
>>>>> the
>>>>> original poster, and Mr Corlett may be unaware that EVERYONE saw his
>>>>> reply.
>>>>
>>>> I think when you reply to the original post the sender's address
appears
>>>> in
>>>> the Original Message section (unless he/she has opted to suppress
it), so
>>>> it's just a quick cut &
paste, no?
>>>
>>> I use Thunderbird for cctalk. Isn't an individual reply just a
matter of
>>> clicking on the sender's name in
the header?
>>
>> Some of us are using text-based clients like alpine/pine. On the
>> M.A.R.C.H. list, when I want to issue a private reply, I have to edit
the
>> To: line which quotes the original
sender's address, but will send to
the
list if you leave it, as is.
And some of us use text-based clients like mutt which asks if you want
to send to the Reply-To: address(es) if they don't match the From:
address. If I say no it goes to the From: address.
I can always edit any header field I want though.
So it's all MUA specific as someone else said.
Todd
1:07 p.m.
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:41:05PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote:
Call me when you find someone who still uses
/usr/ucb/Mail or Rand MH.
*waves*
I was using it yesterday. Because it is so basic, Mail is just the thing for
firing one-liners at mailing list managers and the like, without risk of it
"helpfully" sending me a copy of the outgoing message as is the habit of other
MUAs.
I'm not sure I can remember how to *read* mail with it though.
1:27 p.m.
On Nov 5, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Peter Corlett <abuse at cabal.org.uk> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:41:05PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote:
I use it all the time too since it?s very handy for system administration duties. It?s
quick to load a mailbox to see if something is in it, and it?s handy on the command line
to fire off test messages. Plus I have lots of scripts that use it. But I definitely don?t
use it as my regular mail program anymore.
--
Follow me on twitter: @FozzTexx
Check out my blog: http://insentricity.com
Call me when you find someone who still uses
/usr/ucb/Mail or Rand MH.
*waves*
I was using it yesterday. Because it is so basic, Mail is just the thing for
firing one-liners at mailing list managers and the like, without risk of it
"helpfully" sending me a copy of the outgoing message as is the habit of other
MUAs.
I'm not sure I can remember how to *read* mail with it though.
1:34 p.m.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Chris Osborn <fozztexx at fozztexx.com> wrote:
duties.
It?s quick to load a mailbox to see if something is in it, and it?s
handy on the command line to fire off test messages. Plus I have lots of
scripts that use it. But I definitely don?t use it as my regular mail
program anymore.
*applause*
But you guys are being entirely too clever for me; I meant "when you use it
as your primary means to send and receive email."
MH I could see (via e.g. nmh) but Mail? Surely you jest. :-)
- Dan C.
On Nov 5, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Peter Corlett <abuse at
cabal.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:41:05PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote:
>> Call me when you find someone who still uses /usr/ucb/Mail or Rand MH.
>
> *waves*
>
> I was using it yesterday. Because it is so basic, Mail is just the
thing for
> firing one-liners at mailing list managers and
the like, without risk
of it
> "helpfully" sending me a copy of the
outgoing message as is the habit
of other
MUAs.
I'm not sure I can remember how to *read* mail with it though.
I use it all the time too since it?s very handy for system administration 
4:07 p.m.
Let's do it. Let's commit to use just that for one whole week! We could
call it the UCB Mail Challenge! Or Pledge or something! I bet we'd learn
something interesting in doing so.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Dan Cross <crossd at gmail.com> wrote:
> MH I could see (via e.g. nmh) but Mail? Surely
you jest. :-)
6 Nov
6 Nov
2:01 a.m.
*applause*
But you guys are being entirely too clever for me; I meant "when you use it
as your primary means to send and receive email."
MH I could see (via e.g. nmh) but Mail? Surely you jest. :-)
I use MAIL on VMS all the time and PMDF MAIL occasionlly.
I can't use MAILBOOK on VM/CMS right now but I hope to be able to use it again
some time.
No gooey enail clients here.
(Just yesterday I sent a second complaint to an outfit that sent me another
html only email.)
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
7 Nov
7 Nov
11:17 a.m.
(Just yesterday I sent a second complaint to an outfit
that sent me
another html only email.)
I reject those at SMTP time. (Though my filters occasionally miss an
HTML email labeled as plain text; I assume some UAs treat such things
as HTML despite the labeling....)
Mouse
5 Nov
5 Nov
3:10 p.m.
I tried using mail(1) on 2.11BSD the other day. It had some nice features
that I never paid attention to in the past. Seemed actually quite
functional. I wanna try living with it for a week, just for hubris /
bragging rights.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Peter Corlett <abuse at cabal.org.uk> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:41:05PM -0500, Dan Cross
wrote:
Call me when you find someone who still uses
/usr/ucb/Mail or Rand MH.
*waves*
I was using it yesterday. Because it is so basic, Mail is just the thing
for
firing one-liners at mailing list managers and the like, without risk of it
"helpfully" sending me a copy of the outgoing message as is the habit of
other
MUAs.
I'm not sure I can remember how to *read* mail with it though.
3:19 p.m.
> Call me when you find someone who still uses
/usr/ucb/Mail or Rand
> MH.
*waves*
Depending on exactly what you mean, I might count. I don't actually
use either much, but I do use my own UA, and it's very MHish in design:
one file per message, one program run per operation (well, sometimes
more, depending on the operation, but definitely not monolithic-UA way
of one long-running process doing lots of different things).
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
3:23 p.m.
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Charles Phillips wrote:
yeah i hear ya?. I?m hard core i still use PINE :)
I'm old, decrepit, and ignorant, and I sue it also.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
3:31 p.m.
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Charles Phillips wrote:
Barbarians. Alpine!
:D
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
yeah i hear ya?. I?m hard core i still use PINE
:)
I'm old, decrepit, and ignorant, and I sue it also.
11:12 a.m.
On 11/5/14 10:53 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I use Thunderbird for cctalk.
As do I. "reply" and "reply to list" buttons in Thunderbird both go to
the list, even though "reply"
claims to be just replying to the sender. It doesn't work that way on other lists, and
if I forget
what list I'm on, it does the wrong thing here.
10:51 a.m.
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:49:50AM -0800, Al Kossow wrote:
On 11/5/14 8:40 AM, Peter Corlett wrote:
SMTP/RFC822 don't have such concepts, so that's a MUA-specific extension that
lists cannot rely upon unless it's a closed list with known MUAs such as on a
homogenous corporate network.
The main tunable is whether list software sets Reply-To: the list or leaves it
alone. In the former case, replies will normally be directed to the list and
it is more faff in many MUAs than it really ought to be to mail just the sender
causing occasional embarassment when something really should be off-list.
However, leaving it alone means that replies tend to go to the sender and not
always to the list as intended. Neither option is entirely satisfatory, but
I'm more a fan of the former on the basis that discussions should stay on-list
unless there's a good reason to take them off-list, although obviously the best
policy depends on the specific list.
I suspect if I subscribed you to some of my
mailing lists without any means
of unsubscription, you'd be likewise somewhat miffed.
As long as people are
working on the list, can we fix it so that 'reply' and
'reply list' go to different places? As a reminder to everyone, there is no way currently
to just reply to the
original poster, and Mr Corlett may be unaware that EVERYONE saw his reply.
I had actually intended to post to the list, since I had been obliquely
referred to on-list and was replying to that. More importantly, I was
describing a problem that was likely to have a solution that other list members
would be interested in. (Hence my preference for on-list so that answers help
everybody and not just the one person who asked.)
1:46 p.m.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014, at 13:51, Peter Corlett wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:49:50AM -0800, Al Kossow
wrote:
"Reply to list", where it exists at all, probably uses the List-Post
header defined in RFC 2369. SMTP and RFC *2*822 are not the be-all and
end-all of mailing standards. (See also RFC 2919 for List-Id)
RFC 2369/2919 headers found in your post:
List-Id: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk.classiccmp.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/options/cctalk>,
<mailto:cctalk-request at classiccmp.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/>
List-Post: <mailto:cctalk at classiccmp.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cctalk-request at classiccmp.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk>,
<mailto:cctalk-request at classiccmp.org?subject=subscribe>
There is no standard-based support for rewriting the user's Reply-To
header (which practice irrevocably discards the original Reply-To and
incites people to, incorrectly, reply to the From header). See also
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html [the Mail-Followup-To
header it proposes is not the subject of any RFC]
On 11/5/14 8:40 AM, Peter Corlett wrote:
SMTP/RFC822 don't have such concepts, so that's a MUA-specific extension
that
lists cannot rely upon unless it's a closed list with known MUAs such as
on a
homogenous corporate network. I suspect if I subscribed you to some of my
mailing lists without any means
of unsubscription, you'd be likewise somewhat miffed.
As long as people are
working on the list, can we fix it so that 'reply' and
'reply list' go to different places? 
9:57 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great random832 at fastmail.us once stated:
There is no standard-based support for rewriting the user's Reply-To
header (which practice irrevocably discards the original Reply-To and
incites people to, incorrectly, reply to the From header). See also
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html [the Mail-Followup-To
header it proposes is not the subject of any RFC]
If you check the syntax for the Reply-To header, you'll see it takes an
address list, which means you can have more than one email address in that
header. So munging could include *adding* an email address, just not
*replacing* any existing email address.
-spc (Who's written lots of code to parse emails ... )
2:22 p.m.
At 01:51 PM 11/5/2014, Peter Corlett wrote:
Neither option is entirely satisfatory ...
I just hit the "Reply All" button in my email client and edit the "To"
line before I edit the body. That seems to work on any list no matter how replies are
configured.
Dale H. Cook, GR / HP Collector, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA
http://plymouthcolony.net/starcity/radios/index.html
10:34 a.m.
Jay, I've trimmed the fat from my reply to make it brief. Thank you
for all and everything you do. I don't read everything, but from my
point of view you have maintained an invaluable resource. Should you
seek donations, please let me know and I'll throw some money at the
maintenance.
Again, Thank You,
Joe Heck
12:54 p.m.
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Jay West wrote:
I just received a post from a listmember about their
"patience wearing
thin". To that list member, I suggest you unsubscribe completely from both
lists permanently. Obviously we're not the best choice for them. My patience
is not wearing thin just yet. If yours is. please leave.
Hissy fit cleanup is aisle three! :D
Thanks for your efforts Jay.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
6 Nov
6 Nov
12:34 a.m.
Very good advice Jay - I think I speak for the vast majority of us in that
we appreciate what you do and what you've done to get things back up and
running.
But it's not all about the list - I've made a contact locally around where I
live with someone who shares a similar interest to me in this space so it
goes beyond the list - but not for the list I probably would not have known
about this person much less made contact with them so thanks Jay!!!!
++++++++++
Kevin Parker
++++++++++
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Jay West
Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2014 2:46 AM
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: list issues & status
As I suspected and alluded to before, there are issues with the list(s) that
were pretty much expected (loss of previous settings of digest mode, as well
as cross posting resulting in duplicates, and in some cases posts showing up
as attachments). Yes, I am aware of these issues.
I just received a post from a listmember about their "patience wearing
thin". To that list member, I suggest you unsubscribe completely from both
lists permanently. Obviously we're not the best choice for them. My patience
is not wearing thin just yet. If yours is. please leave.
Given that the list(s) are at least semi-functional, albeit with some
issues, I switched gears and have been working to get the websites and other
services migrated from the old server to the new server, and am almost
complete with that. Should have the last website migrated by Friday as well
as a few changes that are needed on the main bitsavers repository. After
that, I'll start digging into the remaining issues with list functionality
and then finally we'll start dealing with getting the archives imported
(along with bits that have been missing for a while).
Thanks so much for all your patience folks, we'll get there.
Best,
J
3700
days inactive
3702
days old
34 comments
23 participants
participants (23)
-
abuse＠cabal.org.uk -
aek＠bitsavers.org -
aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cctech＠beyondthepale.ie -
charles＠uniwho.com -
chrise＠pobox.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
crossd＠gmail.com -
drb＠msu.edu -
fozztexx＠fozztexx.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
jacob.ritorto＠gmail.com -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
mhs.stein＠gmail.com -
mloewen＠cpumagic.scol.pa.us -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
radiotest＠juno.com -
random832＠fastmail.us -
spc＠conman.org -
trash3＠splab.cas.neu.edu -
trash80＠internode.on.net -
tsg＠bonedaddy.net