I apologize for the length of this post, but I thought it might be simpler to forward rather than rewriting to send to the lists. It explains the upcoming changes to the archiving of our lists. >Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:45:32 -0800 (PST) >From: [email protected] >Subject: Announcment: RootsWeb Message Archives, Changes Coming >To: [email protected] >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:44:54 -0800 (PST) >Reply-To: [email protected] >Organization: RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Resent-From: [email protected] >X-Mailing-List: <[email protected]> archive/latest/21 >X-Loop: [email protected] >Precedence: list >Resent-Sender: [email protected] > >Sorry to have been virtually absent in the discussion of archiving >messages. Life has been pretty much on hold for me for weeks, first >getting ready to go to Chile to visit the nephew, then going to Chile, >then coming back with food poisoning, then spending one whole day at >the office before coming down with the flu. At RAND, it's probably >now "Karen who? Does she still work here?" > >Marc and Brian and I have talked (using that ancient technology, >the telephone), and here's the current scoop on message archives for >RootsWeb mailing lists. It won't all take effect for a week or two, >so to the extent you want to survey the readers of your respective >mailing lists for their opinions, you'll have time. > >1. Once the new (web-based) system is on line, we will be turning off the >old (e-mail based) system of accessing archives. Experience has shown >that it is hard on the system (uses too many CPU cycles on large lists), >and hard on the user (difficult to understand, tricky syntax) and hard >on the system administrators (I'm going to =scream= the next time some >listowner has a list member write to me to get personalized instruction >on how to search the archives via e-mail, because the listowner doesn't >want to be bothered.) Once the new tools are in place, this old horse >is going to be put out to pasture. (I know that not everyone has web >access -- you might want to have a few volunteers on each list who will >do lookups for those without web access.) > >2. So, what's the new web-based system to be? Evolving, for a start. >In the initial phases, for those lists that are participating, the >most recent messages will be available via the web in a threaded >format. (This is what Marc has been working on.) The older messages >(including the old Maiser archives) will be available via a clunky >search engine (like that used for ROOTS-L on http://searches.rootsweb.com). >(I've been working on this, at least, until I got diverted by all that >stuff up there in the first paragraph.) We hope to do two additional >things: find a new search engine that will index both the threaded and >unthreaded message bases, and as time allows, convert the unthreaded >message bases to threaded. There are some open issues here that we >haven't worked through yet, so it will be awhile, but that's the target. > >3. What about passwords? These have proven much more controversial >than I ever expected. I do understand (shoot, I pushed for them) why >they are useful and solve a lot of problems. The difficulty is that >they seem to introduce at least as many problems as they solve. Some >of which hit closer to home than I like (such as whiney letters to >[email protected] asking what the password is). Anything that >requires more work from the system administration people is almost >guaranteed to be a non-starter, and passwords unfortunately fit that >criteria. Besides having to deal with people who can't remember passwords >or who type them in the wrong case, etc., there's also the problem >that to change a password will require manual intervention (we haven't >developed the software yet so the listowner could do so automatically), >and a password that is stable and never changed isn't much security. >If your archived messages need to be secure, a simple password won't >be enough to secure them. If your archive messages don't need to be >secure, then there's no need for a password. Bottomline: passwords >make more work, but add little additional security. So, no passwords, at >least not for now, probably never. > >4. Can you edit the archives? No, at least, not now. The tools >to let you do so aren't available, and the time for someone (me) to >do it for you is in too short of supply. Except for cases of >egregious copyright violation, death threats, etc, I won't be >available to edit your archives for you. I know this means there >will be some cruft, subscribe/unsubscribe commands, reposted digests, >spam, etc. For most lists, even with the cruft, the signal to noise >ratio will still be quite high. > >5. Does your list have to participate? No. If you don't want your >list included, go to the utility page for your mailing list, follow >the button at the bottom labelled "edit selected files" and add to your >reject list the address "[email protected]". (If you go to >your utility page, and you don't have a button like that at the >bottom, then and only then, write to [email protected] and ask >that the address [email protected] be added to the reject >list for your mailing list. Be sure to say what mailing list.) Note >that, if your list doesn't participate in the web-based archives, >there will be no access to your archives unless you make alternative >arrangements (for instance, through your ISP) to provide such. If you >decide you do want to set up your own message archive elsewhere, we >will zip up your old archives here (including the old messages from >Maiser, if any) and put them somewhere so you can FTP them. Not all >lists want archives (hi, Wally!): if that describes your list, just >opt out of the web-based archives, and voila!, you're set. > >6. What if you have a single hothead who doesn't want his/her messages >included? You have some options. a) You can simply not participate. >b) You can tell him/her tough, and go ahead and participate. c) You can >ask that we not include your material from before the cutover (see >below), and tell your hothead that anything he/she posts after the >cutover will be included. (For the third case, send a letter to >[email protected], etc. etc.) > >Target date for the cutover: 1 December 1997. That should provide time >for you to touch base with your listmembers (if you so desire), and >for us to further shakedown the scripts that will be used to make >all this happen. Marc's beta-test will probably be back online before >then. > >Karen >