Just a bit of a clarification on a comment from some someone who replied off list, but obviously setting your message size limit to "8 or 10 KB" is also going to cause some legitimate posts to come to you for a decision and action, but not as often as you might think. In my experience, a "clean" initial post will get through without delay, either because it is small enough to fit under the limit but also because in my experience RW seems to add several KB to the limit that is set before they actually forward it for moderation. In my experience, I process 1 or perhaps 2 messages in an average day that are moderated for size reason, and that is reasonable IMHO. As I said though, I am retired and spend a lot of time off and on at the computer (just ask my wife!) during an average day, so anything returned to me for moderation is processed with minimal delay and in most cases it is forwarded to the list before the author even notices any delay. David E. Cann decann@infionline.net or on Skype at "david.e.cann" -----Original Message----- From: listowners-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:listowners-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David E. Cann Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 12:06 PM To: Listowners List Posting Subject: Re: [LO] Digest mode What Joan said. . . . :-) I have found that setting the message size limit at 8 KB seems to work pretty well. That stops nearly all digests as replies, but also the occasional legitimate but large reply, so 10 might work better if you do not spend as much time at your computer as I do. When it bounces to me for action, I forward it to the list if it is not overly problematic or return it to the subscriber if it is, and in both cases I send a private note to the subscriber explaining the reasons. And on the subject of digests themselves, I have over time sent to many of my lists a note pointing out that subscribing in digest is unnecessary and even a disadvantage on all but the more active lists. For example, if a list typically only received 1 or 2 posts on an average day, then the net result of subscribing in digest mode is that a digest subscriber will receive that same post up to a day later than all of the list mode subscribers do. This in addition to the need to edit subject lines of digests and such, and when explained this way I have found that a substantial number of them then ask to be changed to list mode on their own. Just a thought, but it's something to consider. Of course, I am retired and spend a lot of time sitting at this computer on an average day, so I tend to have more time to more closely monitor my lists and follow up on such things than some others do, but that is a factor each of us has to consider in such cases. I talk too much. . . . Happy Independence Day to anyone else out there in the U. S. of A. David E. Cann decann@infionline.net or on Skype at "david.e.cann" -----Original Message----- From: listowners-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:listowners-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of JYoung6180@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 10:38 AM To: DianaGM@dgmweb.net; Listowners-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LO] Digest mode It isn't up to us as admins to force our subscribers to subscribe in one mode or the other. RootsWeb offers digest mode and so must we. If your list gets very little traffic then any quoted digest shouldn't be very long either. So not much of a problem. You can manage lengthy digest quotes by setting a very low message size and then when a longer quoted digest gets stuck in pending requests you can remind the person why this happened. Joan