I apologize for my late response to this thread. I've been on the road constantly for two weeks and didn't see Richard's message.
Richard Sims said: >Sorry, Preston, but your presumption to impose this "requirement" on >ADSM-L members is bogus. <sigh> You obviously didn't read the post to which you are responding. It doesn't even appear that you even read the first SENTENCE: "Before posting to this forum, you need to understand that it is also connected to a mailing list that existed before the forum, and that we must respect that community's wishes." I'm giving the ADSM-L mailing list props and telling the forum folks that they need to respect the wishes of its community. I've received two types of complaints since starting this: spam and non-threaded posts. I addressed the spam issue, and am trying to work on the threading issue, but it's an open-source team in three different countries, and I am only one customer of a tool used by thousands of websites, so it's slow going. In the meantime, I'm asking people who reply to forum postings to include some of the relevant text in their post. I couldn't imagine how you could object to that, but you did: >there is NO need in a threaded discussion to voluminously include all past >elements of the discussion, as a mounting accumulation. That's >redundant, wastes Internet bandwidth, and is an untoward imposition on >Marist's disk space in hosting this mailing list (at their expense). Again you're showing me that you didn't read the post. I asked them only to "select the appropriate amount of text needed for context." The funny thing is that what I have suggested that they do will send far less extraneous text than what YOU did, which was to top post and put my entire message after yours. Still others replied to your message, which contained message, with THEIR message. Can you step off the soapbox for a minute and see that maybe I'm trying to HELP here? >Your choice to feed ADSM-L postings to your income-producing >commercial site Now you have definitely have no idea what you're talking about. I pay for this server to be hosted out of my own pocket, and have done so for 11 years now without asking for a single dime from anyone using the site. Within the last year, I was hit by the recession as much as everyone else (I was laid off and now working part-time) and am doing everything I can to make ends meet, so I have been experimenting with ads just to get the site to pay for itself. I tried Google ads for a year or so, and am now trying something else. Only once or twice in the last couple of years has ad revenue exceeded my server bill, so how about dropping the "income-producing commercial site" comments, will you? >What you need to do is finally address the deficiencies of your site >by embarking upon the Web development to organize incoming postings by >thread, as other ADSM-L archiving sites do (adsm.org, www.mail->archive.com/adsm-l@vm.marist.edu If you would bother taking a look at my site's TSM forum, you would see that I organize incoming posts into threads just fine, thank you. I would argue that it does it better than any email archiving system I've seen, and certainly makes searching the postings easier. The problem occurs when I am sending forum postings to the mailing list, and I am indeed working on that, as I previously stated. But such a big project takes time. I could do what ADSM.ORG did and create another forum that doesn't have anything to do with the mailing list, but I felt that this would split the community, or at the very least require people to watch yet another place for questions and answers. I think all users of a given tool (in this cae TSM) should have one place where they can go to ask their questions. The list has been there for far longer than the ADSM.org forum, and I think that the "one place" should be that list. But there are people that prefer the forum style of communicating, so I found this interface that would connect the two. I'm just a guy trying to help people do backup.
