The word is "viruses" not virii ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mo!Langdon" <maureen@pacbell.net> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 6:08 AM Subject: Re- Re: [admin] Attachments in the new system At 12:19 PM -0400 9-11-06, padraigogealagain wrote: <snip> >I think, it would be great boon if we could do that. Imagine having the >ability to send scans of privately held historic documents, or certificate >copies of BDM's, etc.to the List, as one cans on many other non-genealogical >forums. Imagine the virii, the spyware, the malware, the worms, where once there were none. Imagine the pain inflicted on those of us who have a dial-up or satellite Internet connection, or on those of us who still pay by the minute for said connection. Imagine the wailings and the gnashings of teeth raised throughout all lands in which we live. :::shudders::: No thanks. Slán, Mo! -- <http://xri.net/=mobang> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRL-CORK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Padraig I understand that completely. I was trying to say that people have no choice about downloading attachments and that is what takes the time while opening them is fairly fast. Maybe Rootsweb could have a separate web site or list that could deal with attachments and a reference could be made on the regular list to that source. The outback of BC <g> is anyplace away from the southern tip of Vancouver Island or at least 100 miles from the city of Vancouver. My particular spot is in the Kootenay Lake area in south eastern BC, well off the beaten track and therefore mostly ignored by government services and big corporations unless they have their hands out for money. Best regards Muriel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pádraig Mór Ó Gealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: Re- Re: [admin] Attachments in the new system From: "muriel crowe" <mcrowe@bluebell.ca> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Re- Re: [admin] Attachments in the new system >I think the only way to handle this is to ask people to contact you if they >wish to access >the information and it can be sent direct. Well, that's the only way at this time, Muriel - but it is something I'd not wish to do. Because for one reason if one makes an offer of an attachment, one would probably end-up emailing it possibly to every list member - can you imagine how much time that would consume? Then if their is something they don't understand about it, or assumetheir is more info. than what is on the attachment, they'll email privately again. No, no, thanks - I just don't have the time for that. I, as my signature indicates, prefer to make all the contributions that I can to the List only. But Rootsweb would have to change their policy on attachments to accomodate that feature. Andrew, our List Admin. suggested to me that I ought to send some 'feed-back' to Rootsweb, which I did. If and when I get answer to my suggestion, I'll post it here. ***** Reply to the LIST ONLY - Please! ***** ***** And, thanks for such consideration ***** Where is the out-back of B.C - is it on the Artic circle? Pádraig Mór, An Sean Gabhar ( In beautiful downtown Pickering Village, Ajax, Ontario, where now it is only about 65 C. Brrr! ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRL-CORK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

From: "muriel crowe" <mcrowe@bluebell.ca> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Re- Re: [admin] Attachments in the new system >I think the only way to handle this is to ask people to contact you if they >wish to access >the information and it can be sent direct. Well, that's the only way at this time, Muriel - but it is something I'd not wish to do. Because for one reason if one makes an offer of an attachment, one would probably end-up emailing it possibly to every list member - can you imagine how much time that would consume? Then if their is something they don't understand about it, or assumetheir is more info. than what is on the attachment, they'll email privately again. No, no, thanks - I just don't have the time for that. I, as my signature indicates, prefer to make all the contributions that I can to the List only. But Rootsweb would have to change their policy on attachments to accomodate that feature. Andrew, our List Admin. suggested to me that I ought to send some 'feed-back' to Rootsweb, which I did. If and when I get answer to my suggestion, I'll post it here. ***** Reply to the LIST ONLY - Please! ***** ***** And, thanks for such consideration ***** Where is the out-back of B.C - is it on the Artic circle? Pádraig Mór, An Sean Gabhar ( In beautiful downtown Pickering Village, Ajax, Ontario, where now it is only about 65 C. Brrr!

If sent as an attachment, you would only be gnashing your teeth if you chose to download the document. For those who are concerned about viruses and download times, you could simply ignore. The rest of us could choose to download and attachment that interested us. Patricia On 9/13/06, John O'Driscoll <wjod@bizmail.com.au> wrote: > > The word is "viruses" not virii > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mo!Langdon" <maureen@pacbell.net> > To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 6:08 AM > Subject: Re- Re: [admin] Attachments in the new system > > > At 12:19 PM -0400 9-11-06, padraigogealagain wrote: > > <snip> > > >I think, it would be great boon if we could do that. Imagine having the > >ability to send scans of privately held historic documents, or > certificate > >copies of BDM's, etc.to the List, as one cans on many other > non-genealogical > >forums. > > Imagine the virii, the spyware, the malware, the worms, where once there > were none. Imagine the pain inflicted on those of us who have a dial-up or > satellite Internet connection, or on those of us who still pay by the > minute > for said connection. Imagine the wailings and the gnashings of teeth > raised > throughout all lands in which we live. :::shudders::: > > No thanks. > > Slán, > > > > Mo! > -- > <http://xri.net/=mobang> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > IRL-CORK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > IRL-CORK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Unfortunately many dial-up systems still take a long time to download pages regardless if it is an attachment or not and many people don't have access to broadband. My old system took twenty minutes for four pages and the only way to cancel it was to contact the system management. Anything with a picture could take thirty minutes or more. I think the only way to handle this is to ask people to contact you if they wish to access the information and it can be sent direct. Regards Muriel in the out back of BC Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Williams" <genealogistgrrl@gmail.com> To: "John O'Driscoll" <wjod@bizmail.com.au>; <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:41 AM Subject: Re: Re- Re: [admin] Attachments in the new system If sent as an attachment, you would only be gnashing your teeth if you chose to download the document. For those who are concerned about viruses and download times, you could simply ignore. The rest of us could choose to download and attachment that interested us. Patricia

I would suggest that if you have feedback to RootsWeb that you leave them a message at the HelpDesk http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/help.cgi Regards, Andrew On 12 Sep 2006 at 8:42, padraigogealagain wrote: > That method is just 'Fine and Dandy' if one wants to bother with a personal > Website. For those who don't want that route, such as me. No joy, it means > sending attachments privately. > > I think it's time for Rootsweb to completely initiate an new system such as > certain Forum style operations have, where, for example, members can only > contact other members by using the Private Message feature of the site. > Members email addresses are not shown, so one is protected from the SPAM > harvesters ; Members can upload Photos, Drawings, Maps, etc. that all > members and unregistered visitors can view ( unregistered visitors have only > a viewing option). > > Anyway, Rootsweb is a law unto themselves, so end of my participation in > this discussion, But it is evident, that List Admins. were not fully > informed as to the proposed changes and are just learning what happened when > RW recently initiated the changes.. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Donal O'Kelly" <ocollaugh@comcast.net> > To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; "padraigogealagain" > <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> > Cc: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:26 PM > Subject: Re: [admin] Attachments in the new system > > > > Thank you Andrew. > > That was an approximate of the trail I was following. > > You get a website; put up your databases/photos, etc., and link to those > > through your mailing list subscriptions. > > Interested people can read the index of what you have then visit your > > website for the details. > > Don Kelly > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andrew Billinghurst" <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> > > To: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> > > Cc: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:18 PM > > Subject: Re: [admin] Attachments in the new system > > > > > >> If the response so far to how people see multipart digests and they are > >> just text, is anything to gauge by, I would think that it is not in the > >> scope. > >> > >> Users are able to attach such documents to posts in the message boards, > >> and that would seem to be the safest way to undertake the operations. > >> This also means that we don't clog up bandwidth, mailboxes, etc. I > >> could see that RootsWeb would look to more closely align those services, > >> though I doubt that we will see attachments per se in mailing lists. > >> > >> I would think that RootsWeb would see it is the entirety of the package > >> that needs to be considered. As you can get a web account on FREEPAGES > >> server and they have very easy tools, one can upload their documents > >> there and can include a link to a webpage. It would seem that the > >> permanent nature of that, especially considering indexing, would be a > >> better solution if you can add a url or ready reference to that site. > >> > >> So to my way of thinking, that would seem to be more closely aligning > >> services rather than duplicating what already exists.. > >> > >> Regards, Andrew > >> > >> > >> Quoting padraigogealagain <padraigogealagain@rogers.com>: > >> > >>> Andrew, What do think of the possibility that Rootsweb will allow > >>> subscribers to send attachments of items genealogical to the List - > >>> do you > >>> know if such a move is in the forward plans? > >>> > >>> I think, it would be great boon if we could do that. Imagine having > >>> the > >>> ability to send scans of privately held historic documents, or > >>> certificate > >>> copies of BDM's, etc.to the List, as one cans on many other > >>> non-genealogical > >>> forums. > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Andrew Billinghurst" <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> > >>> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> > >>> Cc: <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> > >>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:08 AM > >>> Subject: [admin] Digests in the new system > >>> > >>> > >>> > >From my understanding of the technology, which is reasonably > >>> > informed, the following is the situation under the new Mailman > >>> > mailing list software > >>> > > >>> > 1) The digests can be produced in two methods, flat (plain text) > >>> > digests, or multipart (MIME) digests. Each list will have a > >>> default > >>> > type, and the subscribers can be switched between them. Note that > >>> > RootsWeb has always done multipart digests though there are > >>> different > >>> > types of multipart and this one will look different to the > >>> previous > >>> > type. > >>> > > >>> > 2) AOL users see the multipart digests as attachments. This is an > >>> > AOL view and how their software manages things. > >>> > > >>> > 3) RootsWeb's email will still be text only, there is an oft use > >>> term > >>> > 'plain text' which has been carelessly ascribed and confuses > >>> matters. > >>> > All RootsWeb's mailing lists are plain text, and will not contain > >>> > binary attachments. > >>> > [Note that I will not go into depth about semantics about > >>> attachments > >>> > as it can be quite a discussion and sometimes a discussion > >>> comparing > >>> > apples and oranges]. > >>> > > >>> > 3) I change subscribers to the multipart form from the flat > >>> digest, > >>> > if anyone wishes to be changed to the flat digest form, then > >>> please > >>> > contact me by the email address IRL-CORK-admin@rootsweb.com and I > >>> > will change you over. Note that those who have spoken have been > >>> > changed over. > >>> > > >>> > 4) If you wish to change the format of a digest for another list > >>> then > >>> > please contact the respective list admin by modifying the generic > >>> > address LISTNAME-admin@rootsweb.com > >>> > > >>> > 5) RootsWeb is looking at allowing users to have more direct > >>> control > >>> > of their subscriptions and better blending this into the MyAccount > >>> > https://myaccount.rootsweb.com/signin > >>> > system, and the new software allows this to happen then the old > >>> > software system. This all just takes little steps and our little > >>> bit > >>> > here is patience. > >>> > > >>> > Regards Andrew > >>> > List-admin IRL-CORK mailing list > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 10 Sep 2006 at 9:15, Donal O'Kelly wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> I believe digest posts has always arrived in batches of > >>> attachments. > >>> >> > >>> >> There has been talk about the ability for US to attach files to > >>> our > >>> >> listmail > >>> >> posts, but I have no direct word from Rootsweb on that. > >>> >> > >>> >> It would be better I think to set back and check out anything that > >>> sounds > >>> >> like rumor. Many people on this list understands the part of the > >>> system > >>> >> we > >>> >> work with every day, but we don't know what other goodies we will > >>> have > >>> >> when > >>> >> the whole process begins to properly work. > >>> >> > >>> >> Meanwhile RW is working 24-7 to put out little brushfires with the > >>> new > >>> >> list > >>> >> format, as we all know. > >>> >> > >>> >> As list admins we will take care of each problem one by one until > >>> the > >>> >> whole > >>> >> system works together. > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks all and have a great day. > >>> >> > >>> >> Donal O'Collaugh O'Kelly > >>> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> >> From: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> > >>> >> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; <irl-clare@rootsweb.com>; > >>> >> <IRL-Limerick@rootsweb.com>; <cotipperary@rootsweb.com> > >>> >> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:54 AM > >>> >> Subject: Re: [COTIPPERARY] IRL-CORK Digest,Attachments now being > >>> sent > >>> >> with > >>> >> these ? > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Yes, I asked the same question of the Admin. person at Co.Clare > >>> - but I > >>> >> > didn't get an answer - probably because she's still on holidays > >>> in > >>> >> > Ireland. > >>> >> > You'll have to ask Mr. Billingsworth, The List Admin. > >>> >> > The recent changes that Rootsweb introduced , seems to have this > >>> about. > >>> >> > My > >>> >> > positive thought was - Great! Rootsweb are now allowing > >>> attachments to > >>> >> > be > >>> >> > sent to Lists - but I don't think so. Although it would be a > >>> good idea > >>> >> > in > >>> >> > that we could send Scans of genealogical items, such as > >>> certificates of > >>> >> > B.D.M's. to the List. > >>> >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >>> >> > From: <EAlt117@aol.com> > >>> >> > To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> > >>> >> > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:30 AM > >>> >> > Subject: Re: IRL-CORK Digest, Vol 1, Issue 4 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> IRL-CORK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > >> > >> -- > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/444 - Release Date: 9/11/2006 > >> > >> > > > > > > > >

Well said, Kae! ----- Original Message ----- From: <kae@chartertn.net> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:42 AM Subject: Re:Genealogical Office > The Genealogical Office holds all the records for previous Chief Heralds > of Ireland and as such represents the only source in Ireland for > information about heraldry, clans and chiefs. Now just how much work > these Heralds actually did on Irish clans and chiefs is another matter but > what work was done will be in the records of the Genealogical Office in > Dublin, which is under the auspices of the National Library these days. > And for anyone interested in the subject of Heraldry in Ireland, many if > not most of the old records of the Chief Heralds of Ireland are filmed and > available at a FHC (Morman church) near you. They have even been indexed. > Kae Lewis > > > ---- irl-cork-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > The Genealogical Office in Dublin has nothing to do with heraldry, clans > or > chiefs. They are a genealogical research organization.

The Genealogical Office holds all the records for previous Chief Heralds of Ireland and as such represents the only source in Ireland for information about heraldry, clans and chiefs. Now just how much work these Heralds actually did on Irish clans and chiefs is another matter but what work was done will be in the records of the Genealogical Office in Dublin, which is under the auspices of the National Library these days. And for anyone interested in the subject of Heraldry in Ireland, many if not most of the old records of the Chief Heralds of Ireland are filmed and available at a FHC (Morman church) near you. They have even been indexed. Kae Lewis ---- irl-cork-request@rootsweb.com wrote: The Genealogical Office in Dublin has nothing to do with heraldry, clans or chiefs. They are a genealogical research organization.

If the response so far to how people see multipart digests and they are just text, is anything to gauge by, I would think that it is not in the scope. Users are able to attach such documents to posts in the message boards, and that would seem to be the safest way to undertake the operations. This also means that we don't clog up bandwidth, mailboxes, etc. I could see that RootsWeb would look to more closely align those services, though I doubt that we will see attachments per se in mailing lists. I would think that RootsWeb would see it is the entirety of the package that needs to be considered. As you can get a web account on FREEPAGES server and they have very easy tools, one can upload their documents there and can include a link to a webpage. It would seem that the permanent nature of that, especially considering indexing, would be a better solution if you can add a url or ready reference to that site. So to my way of thinking, that would seem to be more closely aligning services rather than duplicating what already exists.. Regards, Andrew Quoting padraigogealagain <padraigogealagain@rogers.com>: > Andrew, What do think of the possibility that Rootsweb will allow > subscribers to send attachments of items genealogical to the List - > do you > know if such a move is in the forward plans? > > I think, it would be great boon if we could do that. Imagine having > the > ability to send scans of privately held historic documents, or > certificate > copies of BDM's, etc.to the List, as one cans on many other > non-genealogical > forums. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Billinghurst" <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> > To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> > Cc: <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:08 AM > Subject: [admin] Digests in the new system > > > > >From my understanding of the technology, which is reasonably > > informed, the following is the situation under the new Mailman > > mailing list software > > > > 1) The digests can be produced in two methods, flat (plain text) > > digests, or multipart (MIME) digests. Each list will have a > default > > type, and the subscribers can be switched between them. Note that > > RootsWeb has always done multipart digests though there are > different > > types of multipart and this one will look different to the > previous > > type. > > > > 2) AOL users see the multipart digests as attachments. This is an > > AOL view and how their software manages things. > > > > 3) RootsWeb's email will still be text only, there is an oft use > term > > 'plain text' which has been carelessly ascribed and confuses > matters. > > All RootsWeb's mailing lists are plain text, and will not contain > > binary attachments. > > [Note that I will not go into depth about semantics about > attachments > > as it can be quite a discussion and sometimes a discussion > comparing > > apples and oranges]. > > > > 3) I change subscribers to the multipart form from the flat > digest, > > if anyone wishes to be changed to the flat digest form, then > please > > contact me by the email address IRL-CORK-admin@rootsweb.com and I > > will change you over. Note that those who have spoken have been > > changed over. > > > > 4) If you wish to change the format of a digest for another list > then > > please contact the respective list admin by modifying the generic > > address LISTNAME-admin@rootsweb.com > > > > 5) RootsWeb is looking at allowing users to have more direct > control > > of their subscriptions and better blending this into the MyAccount > > https://myaccount.rootsweb.com/signin > > system, and the new software allows this to happen then the old > > software system. This all just takes little steps and our little > bit > > here is patience. > > > > Regards Andrew > > List-admin IRL-CORK mailing list > > > > > > On 10 Sep 2006 at 9:15, Donal O'Kelly wrote: > > > >> I believe digest posts has always arrived in batches of > attachments. > >> > >> There has been talk about the ability for US to attach files to > our > >> listmail > >> posts, but I have no direct word from Rootsweb on that. > >> > >> It would be better I think to set back and check out anything that > sounds > >> like rumor. Many people on this list understands the part of the > system > >> we > >> work with every day, but we don't know what other goodies we will > have > >> when > >> the whole process begins to properly work. > >> > >> Meanwhile RW is working 24-7 to put out little brushfires with the > new > >> list > >> format, as we all know. > >> > >> As list admins we will take care of each problem one by one until > the > >> whole > >> system works together. > >> > >> Thanks all and have a great day. > >> > >> Donal O'Collaugh O'Kelly > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> > >> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; <irl-clare@rootsweb.com>; > >> <IRL-Limerick@rootsweb.com>; <cotipperary@rootsweb.com> > >> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:54 AM > >> Subject: Re: [COTIPPERARY] IRL-CORK Digest,Attachments now being > sent > >> with > >> these ? > >> > >> > >> > Yes, I asked the same question of the Admin. person at Co.Clare > - but I > >> > didn't get an answer - probably because she's still on holidays > in > >> > Ireland. > >> > You'll have to ask Mr. Billingsworth, The List Admin. > >> > The recent changes that Rootsweb introduced , seems to have this > about. > >> > My > >> > positive thought was - Great! Rootsweb are now allowing > attachments to > >> > be > >> > sent to Lists - but I don't think so. Although it would be a > good idea > >> > in > >> > that we could send Scans of genealogical items, such as > certificates of > >> > B.D.M's. to the List. > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: <EAlt117@aol.com> > >> > To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> > >> > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:30 AM > >> > Subject: Re: IRL-CORK Digest, Vol 1, Issue 4 > > > >

That method is just 'Fine and Dandy' if one wants to bother with a personal Website. For those who don't want that route, such as me. No joy, it means sending attachments privately. I think it's time for Rootsweb to completely initiate an new system such as certain Forum style operations have, where, for example, members can only contact other members by using the Private Message feature of the site. Members email addresses are not shown, so one is protected from the SPAM harvesters ; Members can upload Photos, Drawings, Maps, etc. that all members and unregistered visitors can view ( unregistered visitors have only a viewing option). Anyway, Rootsweb is a law unto themselves, so end of my participation in this discussion, But it is evident, that List Admins. were not fully informed as to the proposed changes and are just learning what happened when RW recently initiated the changes.. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donal O'Kelly" <ocollaugh@comcast.net> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> Cc: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [admin] Attachments in the new system > Thank you Andrew. > That was an approximate of the trail I was following. > You get a website; put up your databases/photos, etc., and link to those > through your mailing list subscriptions. > Interested people can read the index of what you have then visit your > website for the details. > Don Kelly > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Billinghurst" <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> > To: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> > Cc: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:18 PM > Subject: Re: [admin] Attachments in the new system > > >> If the response so far to how people see multipart digests and they are >> just text, is anything to gauge by, I would think that it is not in the >> scope. >> >> Users are able to attach such documents to posts in the message boards, >> and that would seem to be the safest way to undertake the operations. >> This also means that we don't clog up bandwidth, mailboxes, etc. I >> could see that RootsWeb would look to more closely align those services, >> though I doubt that we will see attachments per se in mailing lists. >> >> I would think that RootsWeb would see it is the entirety of the package >> that needs to be considered. As you can get a web account on FREEPAGES >> server and they have very easy tools, one can upload their documents >> there and can include a link to a webpage. It would seem that the >> permanent nature of that, especially considering indexing, would be a >> better solution if you can add a url or ready reference to that site. >> >> So to my way of thinking, that would seem to be more closely aligning >> services rather than duplicating what already exists.. >> >> Regards, Andrew >> >> >> Quoting padraigogealagain <padraigogealagain@rogers.com>: >> >>> Andrew, What do think of the possibility that Rootsweb will allow >>> subscribers to send attachments of items genealogical to the List - >>> do you >>> know if such a move is in the forward plans? >>> >>> I think, it would be great boon if we could do that. Imagine having >>> the >>> ability to send scans of privately held historic documents, or >>> certificate >>> copies of BDM's, etc.to the List, as one cans on many other >>> non-genealogical >>> forums. >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Andrew Billinghurst" <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> >>> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> >>> Cc: <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> >>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:08 AM >>> Subject: [admin] Digests in the new system >>> >>> >>> > >From my understanding of the technology, which is reasonably >>> > informed, the following is the situation under the new Mailman >>> > mailing list software >>> > >>> > 1) The digests can be produced in two methods, flat (plain text) >>> > digests, or multipart (MIME) digests. Each list will have a >>> default >>> > type, and the subscribers can be switched between them. Note that >>> > RootsWeb has always done multipart digests though there are >>> different >>> > types of multipart and this one will look different to the >>> previous >>> > type. >>> > >>> > 2) AOL users see the multipart digests as attachments. This is an >>> > AOL view and how their software manages things. >>> > >>> > 3) RootsWeb's email will still be text only, there is an oft use >>> term >>> > 'plain text' which has been carelessly ascribed and confuses >>> matters. >>> > All RootsWeb's mailing lists are plain text, and will not contain >>> > binary attachments. >>> > [Note that I will not go into depth about semantics about >>> attachments >>> > as it can be quite a discussion and sometimes a discussion >>> comparing >>> > apples and oranges]. >>> > >>> > 3) I change subscribers to the multipart form from the flat >>> digest, >>> > if anyone wishes to be changed to the flat digest form, then >>> please >>> > contact me by the email address IRL-CORK-admin@rootsweb.com and I >>> > will change you over. Note that those who have spoken have been >>> > changed over. >>> > >>> > 4) If you wish to change the format of a digest for another list >>> then >>> > please contact the respective list admin by modifying the generic >>> > address LISTNAME-admin@rootsweb.com >>> > >>> > 5) RootsWeb is looking at allowing users to have more direct >>> control >>> > of their subscriptions and better blending this into the MyAccount >>> > https://myaccount.rootsweb.com/signin >>> > system, and the new software allows this to happen then the old >>> > software system. This all just takes little steps and our little >>> bit >>> > here is patience. >>> > >>> > Regards Andrew >>> > List-admin IRL-CORK mailing list >>> > >>> > >>> > On 10 Sep 2006 at 9:15, Donal O'Kelly wrote: >>> > >>> >> I believe digest posts has always arrived in batches of >>> attachments. >>> >> >>> >> There has been talk about the ability for US to attach files to >>> our >>> >> listmail >>> >> posts, but I have no direct word from Rootsweb on that. >>> >> >>> >> It would be better I think to set back and check out anything that >>> sounds >>> >> like rumor. Many people on this list understands the part of the >>> system >>> >> we >>> >> work with every day, but we don't know what other goodies we will >>> have >>> >> when >>> >> the whole process begins to properly work. >>> >> >>> >> Meanwhile RW is working 24-7 to put out little brushfires with the >>> new >>> >> list >>> >> format, as we all know. >>> >> >>> >> As list admins we will take care of each problem one by one until >>> the >>> >> whole >>> >> system works together. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks all and have a great day. >>> >> >>> >> Donal O'Collaugh O'Kelly >>> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >> From: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> >>> >> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; <irl-clare@rootsweb.com>; >>> >> <IRL-Limerick@rootsweb.com>; <cotipperary@rootsweb.com> >>> >> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:54 AM >>> >> Subject: Re: [COTIPPERARY] IRL-CORK Digest,Attachments now being >>> sent >>> >> with >>> >> these ? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > Yes, I asked the same question of the Admin. person at Co.Clare >>> - but I >>> >> > didn't get an answer - probably because she's still on holidays >>> in >>> >> > Ireland. >>> >> > You'll have to ask Mr. Billingsworth, The List Admin. >>> >> > The recent changes that Rootsweb introduced , seems to have this >>> about. >>> >> > My >>> >> > positive thought was - Great! Rootsweb are now allowing >>> attachments to >>> >> > be >>> >> > sent to Lists - but I don't think so. Although it would be a >>> good idea >>> >> > in >>> >> > that we could send Scans of genealogical items, such as >>> certificates of >>> >> > B.D.M's. to the List. >>> >> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> >> > From: <EAlt117@aol.com> >>> >> > To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> >>> >> > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:30 AM >>> >> > Subject: Re: IRL-CORK Digest, Vol 1, Issue 4 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> IRL-CORK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/444 - Release Date: 9/11/2006 >> >> > >

Hi Listers I'm trying to find out information about the McElligot family from Cork. My GG-Grandmother Mary Smyth came to Portsmouth with them in the late 19th century and as I have found virtually nothing about her I considered that perhaps this family was in some way related to her. They are also listed as witnesses on her marriage certificate. Kind Regards Rob Hoult Sheffield

>From my understanding of the technology, which is reasonably informed, the following is the situation under the new Mailman mailing list software 1) The digests can be produced in two methods, flat (plain text) digests, or multipart (MIME) digests. Each list will have a default type, and the subscribers can be switched between them. Note that RootsWeb has always done multipart digests though there are different types of multipart and this one will look different to the previous type. 2) AOL users see the multipart digests as attachments. This is an AOL view and how their software manages things. 3) RootsWeb's email will still be text only, there is an oft use term 'plain text' which has been carelessly ascribed and confuses matters. All RootsWeb's mailing lists are plain text, and will not contain binary attachments. [Note that I will not go into depth about semantics about attachments as it can be quite a discussion and sometimes a discussion comparing apples and oranges]. 3) I change subscribers to the multipart form from the flat digest, if anyone wishes to be changed to the flat digest form, then please contact me by the email address IRL-CORK-admin@rootsweb.com and I will change you over. Note that those who have spoken have been changed over. 4) If you wish to change the format of a digest for another list then please contact the respective list admin by modifying the generic address LISTNAME-admin@rootsweb.com 5) RootsWeb is looking at allowing users to have more direct control of their subscriptions and better blending this into the MyAccount https://myaccount.rootsweb.com/signin system, and the new software allows this to happen then the old software system. This all just takes little steps and our little bit here is patience. Regards Andrew List-admin IRL-CORK mailing list On 10 Sep 2006 at 9:15, Donal O'Kelly wrote: > I believe digest posts has always arrived in batches of attachments. > > There has been talk about the ability for US to attach files to our listmail > posts, but I have no direct word from Rootsweb on that. > > It would be better I think to set back and check out anything that sounds > like rumor. Many people on this list understands the part of the system we > work with every day, but we don't know what other goodies we will have when > the whole process begins to properly work. > > Meanwhile RW is working 24-7 to put out little brushfires with the new list > format, as we all know. > > As list admins we will take care of each problem one by one until the whole > system works together. > > Thanks all and have a great day. > > Donal O'Collaugh O'Kelly > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> > To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; <irl-clare@rootsweb.com>; > <IRL-Limerick@rootsweb.com>; <cotipperary@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:54 AM > Subject: Re: [COTIPPERARY] IRL-CORK Digest,Attachments now being sent with > these ? > > > > Yes, I asked the same question of the Admin. person at Co.Clare - but I > > didn't get an answer - probably because she's still on holidays in > > Ireland. > > You'll have to ask Mr. Billingsworth, The List Admin. > > The recent changes that Rootsweb introduced , seems to have this about. My > > positive thought was - Great! Rootsweb are now allowing attachments to be > > sent to Lists - but I don't think so. Although it would be a good idea in > > that we could send Scans of genealogical items, such as certificates of > > B.D.M's. to the List. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <EAlt117@aol.com> > > To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:30 AM > > Subject: Re: IRL-CORK Digest, Vol 1, Issue 4 > > > > >

Thank you Andrew. That was an approximate of the trail I was following. You get a website; put up your databases/photos, etc., and link to those through your mailing list subscriptions. Interested people can read the index of what you have then visit your website for the details. Don Kelly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Billinghurst" <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> To: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> Cc: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [admin] Attachments in the new system > If the response so far to how people see multipart digests and they are > just text, is anything to gauge by, I would think that it is not in the > scope. > > Users are able to attach such documents to posts in the message boards, > and that would seem to be the safest way to undertake the operations. > This also means that we don't clog up bandwidth, mailboxes, etc. I > could see that RootsWeb would look to more closely align those services, > though I doubt that we will see attachments per se in mailing lists. > > I would think that RootsWeb would see it is the entirety of the package > that needs to be considered. As you can get a web account on FREEPAGES > server and they have very easy tools, one can upload their documents > there and can include a link to a webpage. It would seem that the > permanent nature of that, especially considering indexing, would be a > better solution if you can add a url or ready reference to that site. > > So to my way of thinking, that would seem to be more closely aligning > services rather than duplicating what already exists.. > > Regards, Andrew > > > Quoting padraigogealagain <padraigogealagain@rogers.com>: > >> Andrew, What do think of the possibility that Rootsweb will allow >> subscribers to send attachments of items genealogical to the List - >> do you >> know if such a move is in the forward plans? >> >> I think, it would be great boon if we could do that. Imagine having >> the >> ability to send scans of privately held historic documents, or >> certificate >> copies of BDM's, etc.to the List, as one cans on many other >> non-genealogical >> forums. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Andrew Billinghurst" <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> >> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> >> Cc: <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> >> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:08 AM >> Subject: [admin] Digests in the new system >> >> >> > >From my understanding of the technology, which is reasonably >> > informed, the following is the situation under the new Mailman >> > mailing list software >> > >> > 1) The digests can be produced in two methods, flat (plain text) >> > digests, or multipart (MIME) digests. Each list will have a >> default >> > type, and the subscribers can be switched between them. Note that >> > RootsWeb has always done multipart digests though there are >> different >> > types of multipart and this one will look different to the >> previous >> > type. >> > >> > 2) AOL users see the multipart digests as attachments. This is an >> > AOL view and how their software manages things. >> > >> > 3) RootsWeb's email will still be text only, there is an oft use >> term >> > 'plain text' which has been carelessly ascribed and confuses >> matters. >> > All RootsWeb's mailing lists are plain text, and will not contain >> > binary attachments. >> > [Note that I will not go into depth about semantics about >> attachments >> > as it can be quite a discussion and sometimes a discussion >> comparing >> > apples and oranges]. >> > >> > 3) I change subscribers to the multipart form from the flat >> digest, >> > if anyone wishes to be changed to the flat digest form, then >> please >> > contact me by the email address IRL-CORK-admin@rootsweb.com and I >> > will change you over. Note that those who have spoken have been >> > changed over. >> > >> > 4) If you wish to change the format of a digest for another list >> then >> > please contact the respective list admin by modifying the generic >> > address LISTNAME-admin@rootsweb.com >> > >> > 5) RootsWeb is looking at allowing users to have more direct >> control >> > of their subscriptions and better blending this into the MyAccount >> > https://myaccount.rootsweb.com/signin >> > system, and the new software allows this to happen then the old >> > software system. This all just takes little steps and our little >> bit >> > here is patience. >> > >> > Regards Andrew >> > List-admin IRL-CORK mailing list >> > >> > >> > On 10 Sep 2006 at 9:15, Donal O'Kelly wrote: >> > >> >> I believe digest posts has always arrived in batches of >> attachments. >> >> >> >> There has been talk about the ability for US to attach files to >> our >> >> listmail >> >> posts, but I have no direct word from Rootsweb on that. >> >> >> >> It would be better I think to set back and check out anything that >> sounds >> >> like rumor. Many people on this list understands the part of the >> system >> >> we >> >> work with every day, but we don't know what other goodies we will >> have >> >> when >> >> the whole process begins to properly work. >> >> >> >> Meanwhile RW is working 24-7 to put out little brushfires with the >> new >> >> list >> >> format, as we all know. >> >> >> >> As list admins we will take care of each problem one by one until >> the >> >> whole >> >> system works together. >> >> >> >> Thanks all and have a great day. >> >> >> >> Donal O'Collaugh O'Kelly >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> >> >> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; <irl-clare@rootsweb.com>; >> >> <IRL-Limerick@rootsweb.com>; <cotipperary@rootsweb.com> >> >> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:54 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [COTIPPERARY] IRL-CORK Digest,Attachments now being >> sent >> >> with >> >> these ? >> >> >> >> >> >> > Yes, I asked the same question of the Admin. person at Co.Clare >> - but I >> >> > didn't get an answer - probably because she's still on holidays >> in >> >> > Ireland. >> >> > You'll have to ask Mr. Billingsworth, The List Admin. >> >> > The recent changes that Rootsweb introduced , seems to have this >> about. >> >> > My >> >> > positive thought was - Great! Rootsweb are now allowing >> attachments to >> >> > be >> >> > sent to Lists - but I don't think so. Although it would be a >> good idea >> >> > in >> >> > that we could send Scans of genealogical items, such as >> certificates of >> >> > B.D.M's. to the List. >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> > From: <EAlt117@aol.com> >> >> > To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> >> >> > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:30 AM >> >> > Subject: Re: IRL-CORK Digest, Vol 1, Issue 4 >> >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > IRL-CORK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/444 - Release Date: 9/11/2006 > >

A dhuine uasal, Mo! Well, my concerns about that possibility have been long been minimised. I have nightly scheduled updates to my Firewall and Anti-virus software, as well as my Anti-Spam filters.. And I look very carefully at any message if I suspect from experience it is any way suspicious - but I do agree that there is minimal potential risk - if one has all the necessary security - especially on the Lists whose Administrators do not allow a Prepend to the List mail - such as the List on which we are now corresponding. When mail comes in from the Co.Cork list, it does not indicate the source, i.e., "[Re. Irl-Cork]". Yes I have asked Andrew to try and do something about that necessary prepend. It seems to be up to the List members when replying to add the prepend to the Subject line of the message we send, as I have done in this case. Yes, I understand it can be feloniously inserted, but what solution do you suggest, other than rejecting the opportunity of send copies of needed supporting documents publicly to other members? The answer to that for me is I don't wish to engage in private correspondence with other members. If I can help, my assistance will appear on the List, AND NOT ANYONES' PRIVATE MAIL BOXES. Slán go foil, Pádraig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mo! Langdon" <maureen@pacbell.net> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 4:08 PM Subject: Re- Re: [admin] Attachments in the new system At 12:19 PM -0400 9-11-06, padraigogealagain wrote: <snip> >I think, it would be great boon if we could do that. Imagine having the >ability to send scans of privately held historic documents, or certificate >copies of BDM's, etc.to the List, as one cans on many other >non-genealogical >forums. Imagine the virii, the spyware, the malware, the worms, where once there were none. Imagine the pain inflicted on those of us who have a dial-up or satellite Internet connection, or on those of us who still pay by the minute for said connection. Imagine the wailings and the gnashings of teeth raised throughout all lands in which we live. :::shudders::: No thanks. Slán, Mo!

Looking for information on the following names in the Cousane/Kealkil/Gortloughra area of PLU Bantry. Leary - Cronin - Harrington - Keohane Any help will be appreciated. Peggy Australia

At 12:19 PM -0400 9-11-06, padraigogealagain wrote: <snip> >I think, it would be great boon if we could do that. Imagine having the >ability to send scans of privately held historic documents, or certificate >copies of BDM's, etc.to the List, as one cans on many other non-genealogical >forums. Imagine the virii, the spyware, the malware, the worms, where once there were none. Imagine the pain inflicted on those of us who have a dial-up or satellite Internet connection, or on those of us who still pay by the minute for said connection. Imagine the wailings and the gnashings of teeth raised throughout all lands in which we live. :::shudders::: No thanks. Slán, Mo! -- <http://xri.net/=mobang>

(For padraigogealagain) The Genealogical Office in Dublin has nothing to do with heraldry, clans or chiefs. They are a genealogical research organization. The Chief Heralds Office (which is an extra duty to the National Librarian in Dublin) handles heraldry and up to 2001, Chiefs of Name. They do not recognize Chiefs of Name at this time after they found one of six (MacCarthy Mor) as a fraud which cast questions on the other five that were confirmed between 1989-95. My chief's uncle was confirmed as Chief of Name in 1945 by Edward MacLysaght. The Chief Heralds Office stand on Chief recognition can be seen here: http://www.nli.ie/pdfs/Chief%20of%20name.pdf 'The' O'Neill currently lives in Portugal and does use this address (The). Remember, 'The' is not a title but only designates a position as senior in their line. The O'Brien's pedigree is about 39 feet long and is currently held in the National Library. It shows all the Chiefs right up to the present. My chief is 34th generation from Brian Boru, High King of Ireland. All O'Briens would love to trace their roots back to this line, but the odds are against us. Because their are so many branches over the last 1000 years, there is no way I, or most others, will ever connect. The Clans of Ireland, Ltd (http://www.theclansofireland.ie/) not to be confused with Clans of Ireland (http://www.clansofireland.org/ , http://www.irishclans.com/) does not recognize chiefs. They only verify Irish Clans and help them organize themselves. They do not recognize Irish societies such as Clan Cian or other pre-surname population groups. They are chartered with the Irish Government for this purpose. At present there are five chiefs in question as a result of the MacCarthy Mor affair. Once the Genealogy & Heraldry Bill 2006 is passed, these five will have to resubmit their paperwork for recognition. This time it will be more extensive, not like the cursory check they had the first time. I presume some of them won't make the cut. As far as Clan Doyle's website, let me clarify some things. Here is what you read: 'Since the establishment of the Clans of Ireland Office there are now about 150 Clans registered and a number of these Clans mistakenly use incorrect pre-nominals (which are in actuality ancient titles) when appointing their Clan Chieftains. The list that appears below is acknowledged by the Irish Government, through the Office of the Chief Herald, as being the genealogically pre-eminent representatives of the ancient Gaelic families and their titles. Only these Irish aristocrats may use the ancient Gaelic form of address of 'The', which is equivalent to the European Princely title of 'His Serene Highness'.' The Clans of Ireland Office they refer to is The Clans of Ireland. Ltd. There is no office. There are over 130 clans registered. As far as appointing clan chieftains are concerned, The Clans of Ireland, Ltd has no authority in that area. That is strictly up to each individual clan. However, the proper addresses are: 1. 'The' - Chief of Name as verified by the Chief Heralds Office. 2. 'Hon' - Elected Chief but not Chief of Name. Does not have to be verified by the Chief Heralds Office. The list of Irish Chiefs that appears below 'ARE NOT' recognized by the Irish Government. The list of Irish Chiefs of Name is correct except for those who have died or those in question. There are currently 16 Chiefs on the Standing Council of Irish Chiefs and Chieftains. There is NO government agency that recognizes Irish Chiefs. As stated earlier, the Chief Heralds Office is an extra duty position for the librarian at the National Library in Dublin. The National Library is funded through an agency in the Irish Government but has no authority from the Irish Government. The other problem with Chief lines is that many Chiefs were elected and not inherited. Under Brehon law, the Chief was elected. It was not a hereditary position unless the ruling family had the power to do so. Those who try to claim the chief position under Brehon law are out of luck as there are no records to support any of those elections. With the passing of the bill in the senate, all of this will become a government function and we will get definite guidelines then. Mike ---- Original Message ----- From: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> To: <irl-limerick@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [IRL-LIMERICK] The Arms of Irish Septs- An Explanation (Pt.2-final) > All you say, Mike, is probably true BUT I have the original letter that I > received in reply to my queries, and the answer they gave is absolute in > that there is NO authority ( the key word ) in Genealogy or Heraldry for > the > use of 'THE" as a descendant of a Clan chief - the letter doesn't say that > the title is even recognised by the Chief Herald. > > Interesting though, how anyone can support direct line to a chief of Sept > since the Celtic order began the beginning of its end after the 1601 > battle > of Kinsale that consequently led to the flight of many of the Earls ( a > conferred English title, as you likely know). The great chief O'Neill > later > denounced it as did many other. Those who acquiesced to it were only ' > feathering their own nests' and to heck with the other members of the > tribal > sept who had common rights under Brehon law to Sept territory. Its > remarkable how they managed to have proof of descent considering the > majority on these Lists are up against 'Brick Walls' trying to root to an > ancestor in the 1850's, for example - let alone one who lived in the mid > 17th. century. > > It has to be recognised that many of the Sept scribes doctored the > genealogy > of the chiefs at their banquet oral recitals. > > Many of the so-called Head of Clans debunked based on false genealogies. I > wonder if you are referring to the title granted by The Clans of Ireland > Office? > > See: http://www.doyle.com.au/chiefs.html for general information. There > are > many more, but I am trying to find one that helped debunk some contenders > to > Ancestral chiefs' titles. > > Finally, you state that Burke's General Armory 1884 is an English > publication - Of course, it is, the Irish chiefs didn't have Arms. But are > you referring to Kennedy's Book of Arms (1816) ? >

----- Original Message ----- From: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> To: <irl-limerick@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [IRL-LIMERICK] The Arms of Irish Septs- An Explanation ( Pt.2-final) All you say, Mike, is probably true BUT I have the original letter that I received in reply to my queries, and the answer they gave is absolute in that there is NO authority ( the key word ) in Genealogy or Heraldry for the use of 'THE" as a descendant of a Clan chief - the letter doesn't say that the title is even recognised by the Chief Herald. Interesting though, how anyone can support direct line to a chief of Sept since the Celtic order began the beginning of its end after the 1601 battle of Kinsale that consequently led to the flight of many of the Earls ( a conferred English title, as you likely know). The great chief O'Neill later denounced it as did many other. Those who acquiesced to it were only ' feathering their own nests' and to heck with the other members of the tribal sept who had common rights under Brehon law to Sept territory. Its remarkable how they managed to have proof of descent considering the majority on these Lists are up against 'Brick Walls' trying to root to an ancestor in the 1850's, for example - let alone one who lived in the mid 17th. century. It has to be recognised that many of the Sept scribes doctored the genealogy of the chiefs at their banquet oral recitals. Many of the so-called Head of Clans debunked based on false genealogies. I wonder if you are referring to the title granted by The Clans of Ireland Office? See: http://www.doyle.com.au/chiefs.html for general information. There are many more, but I am trying to find one that helped debunk some contenders to Ancestral chiefs' titles. Finally, you state that Burke's General Armory 1884 is an English publication - Of course, it is, the Irish chiefs didn't have Arms. But are you referring to Kennedy's Book of Arms (1816) ? . .----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike O'Brien" <mike@obrienclan.com> > To: <irl-limerick@rootsweb.com>; <irl-clare@rootsweb.com>; > <Irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; <cotipperary@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 12:09 PM > Subject: Re: [IRL-LIMERICK] The Arms of Irish Septs- An Explanation ( > Pt.2-final) > > > Just a short note for all. > 1. The term 'THE' before a name is the courtesy recognition of the senior > male bloodline descendent of the last de facto Chief of that family. The > term 'THE' is NOT a title, it is only a position recognized by the Chief > Herald's Office of Ireland and has no authority. My Chief, The O'Brien > has > inherited the position from his uncle and takes the responsibility of that > position very seriously. > 2. Burke's General Armory is a British arms record. The Irish Book of > Arms > is a separate publication. > 3. There is currently a Bill before the Irish Senate (Genealogy & > Heraldry > Bill, 2006) that will make the Chief Heralds Office an official government > office staffed by a civil servant with government authority over heraldry > in > Ireland. You can read the bill here: > (http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2006/2306/b2306s.pdf). > I have read the complete bill and can't wait for their approval. > > Mike > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> > To: <irl-clare@rootsweb.com>; <irl-limerick@rootsweb.com>; > <Irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; <cotipperary@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:56 PM > Subject: [IRL-LIMERICK] The Arms of Irish Septs- An Explanation ( > Pt.2 -final) > > >> In my previous posting I gave excerpts froman URL about this,oft-times >> controversial subject regarding copyrighted works. >> >> Now I am transcribing the body of a reply that I received 12 February, >> 1997 from Genealogical Office, Dublin: >> >> Dear Padraig O'Gealagain, >> >> "Your request for information on the arms appropriate to Galligan and >> O'Quinn has been referred to me for attention. >> >> According to Burke "The General Armory", 1884, no arms are recorderd for >> either Galligan, Gilligan or McGilligan. I enclose extracts dealing with >> Quinn and O'Quinn and also accounts from Woulfe, Sloinnte Gaedheal is >> Gall >> (Irish names and surnames) and find the Galligan is a distinct name from >> Gilligan or Quinn and no arms have been found on record as being >> appropriateto Galligan. It would be possible to apply for a grant of arms >> to the Chief Herald. >> >> There is no authority for the use of "The" in Irish genealogy or >> Heraldry. >> The leaders in the Clan [sic] were known by their surname, O'Neill, >> O'Donnell. and MacCarthy, etc. >> >> In answer to your final query no person is entitled officially to bear >> arms except under the terms of a grant from the former Ulster Office or >> from the Chief Herald. >> >> Yours sincerely >> >> Eilish Ellis (Mrs) " >> >> **************************************** >> >> The reason for my enquiry to the Genealogical office was two-fold: 1). To >> check tjhe authenticity of a Coat of Arms blazon on a delicate pottery >> plate which my wife brought back to me as a gift, from an Irish visit, >> 2). to check the reference in O'Hart's genealogies where Giolagain was >> shown as number (I forget) in the line of Ir and from whom decended >> Gillgan, and #3) to check on the validness of certain persons claiming to >> be Heads of Serfs using the title "The O'Neill" etc., etc. >> >> So, the above letter transcription answered those questions. But the >> key-words in the Coats of Arms reference are "entitled officially". I >> take that to mean you can buy a Family Crest, hang it in your Rec-room or >> where ever, but using it in an official capacity, such as on your >> business >> or personal mail could invite a lawsuit from the official owner. >> >> >> ***** Reply to the LIST ONLY - Please! ***** >> ***** And, thanks for such consideration ***** >> >> Pádraig Mór, >> An Sean Gabhar >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> IRL-LIMERICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > IRL-LIMERICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Andrew, What do think of the possibility that Rootsweb will allow subscribers to send attachments of items genealogical to the List - do you know if such a move is in the forward plans? I think, it would be great boon if we could do that. Imagine having the ability to send scans of privately held historic documents, or certificate copies of BDM's, etc.to the List, as one cans on many other non-genealogical forums. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Billinghurst" <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> Cc: <billinghurst@tpg.com.au> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:08 AM Subject: [admin] Digests in the new system > >From my understanding of the technology, which is reasonably > informed, the following is the situation under the new Mailman > mailing list software > > 1) The digests can be produced in two methods, flat (plain text) > digests, or multipart (MIME) digests. Each list will have a default > type, and the subscribers can be switched between them. Note that > RootsWeb has always done multipart digests though there are different > types of multipart and this one will look different to the previous > type. > > 2) AOL users see the multipart digests as attachments. This is an > AOL view and how their software manages things. > > 3) RootsWeb's email will still be text only, there is an oft use term > 'plain text' which has been carelessly ascribed and confuses matters. > All RootsWeb's mailing lists are plain text, and will not contain > binary attachments. > [Note that I will not go into depth about semantics about attachments > as it can be quite a discussion and sometimes a discussion comparing > apples and oranges]. > > 3) I change subscribers to the multipart form from the flat digest, > if anyone wishes to be changed to the flat digest form, then please > contact me by the email address IRL-CORK-admin@rootsweb.com and I > will change you over. Note that those who have spoken have been > changed over. > > 4) If you wish to change the format of a digest for another list then > please contact the respective list admin by modifying the generic > address LISTNAME-admin@rootsweb.com > > 5) RootsWeb is looking at allowing users to have more direct control > of their subscriptions and better blending this into the MyAccount > https://myaccount.rootsweb.com/signin > system, and the new software allows this to happen then the old > software system. This all just takes little steps and our little bit > here is patience. > > Regards Andrew > List-admin IRL-CORK mailing list > > > On 10 Sep 2006 at 9:15, Donal O'Kelly wrote: > >> I believe digest posts has always arrived in batches of attachments. >> >> There has been talk about the ability for US to attach files to our >> listmail >> posts, but I have no direct word from Rootsweb on that. >> >> It would be better I think to set back and check out anything that sounds >> like rumor. Many people on this list understands the part of the system >> we >> work with every day, but we don't know what other goodies we will have >> when >> the whole process begins to properly work. >> >> Meanwhile RW is working 24-7 to put out little brushfires with the new >> list >> format, as we all know. >> >> As list admins we will take care of each problem one by one until the >> whole >> system works together. >> >> Thanks all and have a great day. >> >> Donal O'Collaugh O'Kelly >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> >> To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; <irl-clare@rootsweb.com>; >> <IRL-Limerick@rootsweb.com>; <cotipperary@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:54 AM >> Subject: Re: [COTIPPERARY] IRL-CORK Digest,Attachments now being sent >> with >> these ? >> >> >> > Yes, I asked the same question of the Admin. person at Co.Clare - but I >> > didn't get an answer - probably because she's still on holidays in >> > Ireland. >> > You'll have to ask Mr. Billingsworth, The List Admin. >> > The recent changes that Rootsweb introduced , seems to have this about. >> > My >> > positive thought was - Great! Rootsweb are now allowing attachments to >> > be >> > sent to Lists - but I don't think so. Although it would be a good idea >> > in >> > that we could send Scans of genealogical items, such as certificates of >> > B.D.M's. to the List. >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: <EAlt117@aol.com> >> > To: <irl-cork@rootsweb.com> >> > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:30 AM >> > Subject: Re: IRL-CORK Digest, Vol 1, Issue 4

Just a short note for all. 1. The term 'THE' before a name is the courtesy recognition of the senior male bloodline descendent of the last de facto Chief of that family. The term 'THE' is NOT a title, it is only a position recognized by the Chief Herald's Office of Ireland and has no authority. My Chief, The O'Brien has inherited the position from his uncle and takes the responsibility of that position very seriously. 2. Burke's General Armory is a British arms record. The Irish Book of Arms is a separate publication. 3. There is currently a Bill before the Irish Senate (Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006) that will make the Chief Heralds Office an official government office staffed by a civil servant with government authority over heraldry in Ireland. You can read the bill here: (http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2006/2306/b2306s.pdf). I have read the complete bill and can't wait for their approval. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "padraigogealagain" <padraigogealagain@rogers.com> To: <irl-clare@rootsweb.com>; <irl-limerick@rootsweb.com>; <Irl-cork@rootsweb.com>; <cotipperary@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:56 PM Subject: [IRL-LIMERICK] The Arms of Irish Septs- An Explanation ( Pt.2 -final) > In my previous posting I gave excerpts froman URL about this,oft-times > controversial subject regarding copyrighted works. > > Now I am transcribing the body of a reply that I received 12 February, > 1997 from Genealogical Office, Dublin: > > Dear Padraig O'Gealagain, > > "Your request for information on the arms appropriate to Galligan and > O'Quinn has been referred to me for attention. > > According to Burke "The General Armory", 1884, no arms are recorderd for > either Galligan, Gilligan or McGilligan. I enclose extracts dealing with > Quinn and O'Quinn and also accounts from Woulfe, Sloinnte Gaedheal is Gall > (Irish names and surnames) and find the Galligan is a distinct name from > Gilligan or Quinn and no arms have been found on record as being > appropriateto Galligan. It would be possible to apply for a grant of arms > to the Chief Herald. > > There is no authority for the use of "The" in Irish genealogy or Heraldry. > The leaders in the Clan [sic] were known by their surname, O'Neill, > O'Donnell. and MacCarthy, etc. > > In answer to your final query no person is entitled officially to bear > arms except under the terms of a grant from the former Ulster Office or > from the Chief Herald. > > Yours sincerely > > Eilish Ellis (Mrs) " > > **************************************** > > The reason for my enquiry to the Genealogical office was two-fold: 1). To > check tjhe authenticity of a Coat of Arms blazon on a delicate pottery > plate which my wife brought back to me as a gift, from an Irish visit, > 2). to check the reference in O'Hart's genealogies where Giolagain was > shown as number (I forget) in the line of Ir and from whom decended > Gillgan, and #3) to check on the validness of certain persons claiming to > be Heads of Serfs using the title "The O'Neill" etc., etc. > > So, the above letter transcription answered those questions. But the > key-words in the Coats of Arms reference are "entitled officially". I > take that to mean you can buy a Family Crest, hang it in your Rec-room or > where ever, but using it in an official capacity, such as on your business > or personal mail could invite a lawsuit from the official owner. > > > ***** Reply to the LIST ONLY - Please! ***** > ***** And, thanks for such consideration ***** > > Pádraig Mór, > An Sean Gabhar > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > IRL-LIMERICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >