Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: Why is this group not a Yahoo group with archives and web access

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Why is this group not a Yahoo group with archives and web access?
From: ALAN MELIA <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 17:33:01 +0000 (GMT)
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=;
Domainkey-status: good (testing)
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
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 commercial 
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 Yahoo via Adobe 
Flash one often had to pay for "lists"... :-))

Alan G3NYK


--- On Sun, 7/3/10, Alberto di Bene <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Alberto di Bene <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: LF: Why is this group not a Yahoo group with archives and web 
> access?
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Sunday, 7 March, 2010, 17:02
> On 3/7/2010 4:47 PM, Roger Lapthorn
> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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...
> 
> 73  Alberto  I2PHD
> 
> 
> 
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>