Return-Path: Received: from mtain-da03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-da03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.64.75]) by air-mb06.mail.aol.com (v127_r1.1) with ESMTP id MAILINMB062-a6ff4b93e3921c7; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:34:10 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mtain-da03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 214083800008C; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:34:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NoKLl-0006QW-S0 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:33:09 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NoKLl-0006QN-Gq for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:33:09 +0000 Received: from web86506.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([217.146.188.131]) by relay1.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NoKLj-0005AJ-Ot for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:33:09 +0000 Received: (qmail 96503 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Mar 2010 17:33:01 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024; t=1267983181; bh=ggWm9s5fTFL9TkZOOjQ96Q/TDyjrjDqf91CeS+eAHbc=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=XBXNsDr5i9M8qsy+qxtu74Sk2wi2ASExbauA+HSsRJ2zIfLRsjc2DW0wnKzBuUWqVIzD/0gHvaeRhPilJXcbCPAtnRVBUeTCKd/w2++TBvuFu/CxgUGdwu+STllkFZOVPXJ2sUUsVJkBd889Gz23kbSEz1ydpJbFDuxokZ56NXg= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=UU2mL+F7l+JB7pl1tGEu+cTbeOoZnKpCATRG7lpAoMvyFhJJPMRXUtYjgn+mh5eCTxIiHt8SU3Gzdd+/ehNekmxpneHnts5H8bmxCclJmDDJf9sphkyQggTUBcLZfxnZg1Q563Q1XMkF0uV1oGTgPeYEWu4A2Mc0iub9LUBeEFY=; Message-ID: <667020.96157.qm@web86506.mail.ird.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: QECTTfYVM1kMSeFofYfUGNP5XxVHDHJsyomyv4H9LnqnOd3 bEzPE8uNrClQoaarUBR2XCz5YzSFutf4nuXw9HvxOmwFdjFaRXin7c9Ghv.e dK7PDfRCDrE.5RZ02CvZRGa3Thdh8I7BygmNTjBAgRhLY34oZVWO1mn1oFAl VIG_j_zRtj7yw_KwKtXQv6ucHkv0U2wJXjdwfWdTKA8Y2YxwlYRG9jRThUoe FUkxciVoNHCxgIemkyZZJ0sUnAuPHCKXAa.dhSLIwM1FuZ64n8PpmPb4RkSs 1YLaWImzTpVeuL1e_0zETIFRHpolZNQc- Received: from [213.122.48.202] by web86506.mail.ird.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:33:01 GMT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/9.2.12 YahooMailWebService/0.8.100.260964 Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 17:33:01 +0000 (GMT) From: ALAN MELIA To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <4B93DC26.1030602@usa.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 DomainKey-Status: good (testing) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Why is this group not a Yahoo group with archives and web access? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m205.2 ; domain : btinternet.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d404b4b93e3913a1a X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 Hi Alberto, I will query this with John for the Web-master I suspect that= the problem is the hosting. I believe this is not hosted on a big commerc= ial super-computer cluster or "cloud" I think it may me hosted on the RSGB= 's machine together with the committee reflectors/internal email etc. In= the early days before virussed adverts were available from Google and Yah= oo via Adobe Flash one often had to pay for "lists"... :-)) Alan G3NYK --- On Sun, 7/3/10, Alberto di Bene wrote: > From: Alberto di Bene > Subject: Re: LF: Why is this group not a Yahoo group with archives and= web access? > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Date: Sunday, 7 March, 2010, 17:02 > On 3/7/2010 4:47 PM, Roger Lapthorn > wrote: >=20 > > Thanks for all the responses on this. Some decent > reasons have been > > given to leave things just as they are, so I'm OK with > that. >=20 > Maybe just a little change could be done...the current size > limit for attachments seems to be perhaps a bit > restrictive... increasing it up to 60 - 70 kB could be > useful, and at the same it will still continue to be a > deterrent for not clogging the inboxes with oversize > messages... >=20 > 73=A0 Alberto=A0 I2PHD >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20