I have had a few subscribers bail out as they were having to many posts in a day I was mystified by this at first but they failed to say they were digest takers or I would have cottoned on quicker, apparently they were getting 20 or more digests in a day with only one or two posts and their replies in them I know its been mentioned recently but have been made aware the old digest size settings have all defaulted to 30kb I cannot refer back but seem to remember setting mine at 60kb ? Can anyone clarify if thats about the right size or should it be more -- Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

Part of the reason may be the bloated size of messages now. Between spam checkers and antivirus programs headers of messages have become very large. The messages to this list are 16-20 kb whereas a couple of years ago they were in the 3-4kb range. I looked through my old messages and this occurred about Oct-Nov 2016. There were no messages form Oct 7 - Nov 3 2016. There was a crash of the system at that time. When it came back online the average size of the messages had doubled. On Nov 15 2016 the average message size increased about10kb. Ironically the first message where the size jumped on this list was from someone who had concerns about the frequency of digest and how big the digest should be. The average size dropped back about 10kb when the latest version came back online. Some of my digest subscribers replied to my admin message about the lists being on line and the messages are over 30kb. They didn't clean up the message before hitting send. I'm waiting for today when a digest subscriber replies to reply from a digest subscriber. Gene At 05:15 AM 4/8/2018, Nivard Ovington wrote: >I have had a few subscribers bail out as they were having to many posts in a day > >I was mystified by this at first but they failed to say they were digest takers or I would have cottoned on quicker, apparently they were getting 20 or more digests in a day with only one or two posts and their replies in them > >I know its been mentioned recently but have been made aware the old digest size settings have all defaulted to 30kb > >I cannot refer back but seem to remember setting mine at 60kb ? > >Can anyone clarify if thats about the right size or should it be more > > >-- >Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > >_______________________________________________ >_______________________________________________ >You are receiving this email because you have registered with RootsWeb Mailing Lists. Manage your email preferences at: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/postorius/accounts/subscriptions/ > >To unsubscribe send an email to mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe&body=unsubscribe > >View the archives for this list at: https://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/ > >Your privacy is important to us. View our Privacy Statement at https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/privacystatement for more information. Use of RootsWeb is subject to our Terms and Conditions https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/termsandconditions > >RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community > >--- >This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >http://www.avg.com

A simple answer to the problem is to not get the digest, and manage the incoming mail adequately. Then they'd have all the mail there, ready to read when they wanted to do so, and in the meantime it would not be cluttering up their Inboxes. I find it tends to be a matter of education, that the digest-receiver has no idea they have these options until there's an issue with the digest and they're looking for a solution, so I've had this conversation many times with people subscribed to lists I'm involved with. Set up a filter to identify the list mail (usually by the address the email is sent to - the list's address, or Gmail will recognise the list name if you tell it to set a filter from a list post), and place the mail in it's own folder or one set up for a group of lists. In Gmail, I have the filter set to Skip the Inbox and Apply a Label. Now that the filter is in place, the mail is sitting unread away from the Inbox, and I can go to it when I'm ready to read it. I can see at a glance in the list of folders (or labels, in Gmail) when there is unread mail waiting. Microsoft tends to call filters "rules" in their programs. I wrote instructions, years ago now, for a non-genealogy list I help with, and put them on my personal web site - https://sites.google.com/site/wendyhoward/Home/computer-how-to/setting-a-rule-or-filter Wendy On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Gene Phillips <[email protected]> wrote: > Part of the reason may be the bloated size of messages now. Between spam > checkers and antivirus programs headers of messages have become very large. > The messages to this list are 16-20 kb whereas a couple of years ago they > were in the 3-4kb range. I looked through my old messages and this occurred > about Oct-Nov 2016. There were no messages form Oct 7 - Nov 3 2016. There > was a crash of the system at that time. When it came back online the > average size of the messages had doubled. On Nov 15 2016 the average > message size increased about10kb. Ironically the first message where the > size jumped on this list was from someone who had concerns about the > frequency of digest and how big the digest should be. The average size > dropped back about 10kb when the latest version came back online. > > Some of my digest subscribers replied to my admin message about the lists > being on line and the messages are over 30kb. They didn't clean up the > message before hitting send. I'm waiting for today when a digest subscriber > replies to reply from a digest subscriber. > > Gene > > At 05:15 AM 4/8/2018, Nivard Ovington wrote: > > >I have had a few subscribers bail out as they were having to many posts > in a day > > > >I was mystified by this at first but they failed to say they were digest > takers or I would have cottoned on quicker, apparently they were getting 20 > or more digests in a day with only one or two posts and their replies in > them > > > >I know its been mentioned recently but have been made aware the old > digest size settings have all defaulted to 30kb > > > >I cannot refer back but seem to remember setting mine at 60kb ? > > > >Can anyone clarify if thats about the right size or should it be more > > > > > >-- > >Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > >_______________________________________________ > >_______________________________________________ > >You are receiving this email because you have registered with RootsWeb > Mailing Lists. Manage your email preferences at: https://lists.rootsweb. > ancestry.com/postorius/accounts/subscriptions/ > > > >To unsubscribe send an email to mailto:[email protected] > ?subject=unsubscribe&body=unsubscribe > > > >View the archives for this list at: https://lists.rootsweb. > ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/ > > > >Your privacy is important to us. View our Privacy Statement at > https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/privacystatement for more information. > Use of RootsWeb is subject to our Terms and Conditions > https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/termsandconditions > > > >RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community > > > >--- > >This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > >http://www.avg.com > > _______________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > You are receiving this email because you have registered with RootsWeb > Mailing Lists. Manage your email preferences at: https://lists.rootsweb. > ancestry.com/postorius/accounts/subscriptions/ > > To unsubscribe send an email to mailto:[email protected] > ?subject=unsubscribe&body=unsubscribe > > View the archives for this list at: https://lists.rootsweb. > ancestry.com/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/ > > Your privacy is important to us. View our Privacy Statement at > https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/privacystatement for more information. > Use of RootsWeb is subject to our Terms and Conditions > https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/termsandconditions > > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

Thanks Wendy I too have had many a conversation re digests, along the lines of why use them but some (many) are set in their ways and have no desire to change As to being a simple solution? far from it for the majority of people As to using rules or filters, you haven't a chance with a great many subscribers, they don't know what they are and don't want to, they manage what they have and do not see such things as filters as a step forward, but only as something else they have to learn and frankly many are simply not interested in learning more about computers, as long as it works its good enough Having said that, I used to be an ardent fan of filters with Outlook Express, but when I moved to Thunderbird I soon realised the futility of them Thunderbirds search is so good I have no need of filters at all Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 08-Apr-18 9:51 PM, Wendy Howard wrote: > A simple answer to the problem is to not get the digest, and manage the > incoming mail adequately. Then they'd have all the mail there, ready to > read when they wanted to do so, and in the meantime it would not be > cluttering up their Inboxes. >

It *is* a simple solution, but the person has to be in the right place to 'hear' (ie understand) that it is the solution to their problem and be willing to learn something new. Until that time you can scream until you're blue in the face, and they won't hear it - that's human nature. So keep offering it up as an alternative, and those who are receptive will pick it up. For the rest, the digest is the right solution for them, and they will live with that and all it entails, until such time as they're ready for a change, if that time ever arrives. I agree that the searching in Thunderbird is excellent. It is in Gmail, too. I stopped using Thunderbird a few months back and only use the Gmail web interface now. I have a lot of filters, largely to move things like list mail (and list-owner notifications) out of the Inbox, or label mail from expected regulars when the mail first arrives (weather forecasts, power bills, mail copied from other addresses I monitor, companies trying to sell me stuff, etc). In my maibox, anything in the Inbox that doesn't have a label applied to it is usually either actual personal mail from a friend (which is rare) or is spam - in either case, it warrants a closer look. On the flip side, when I look at the spam folder, anything with a label (other than one I have set for a common variation on my email address that spammers often use) needs to be looked at as it is likely to be genuine mail mis-sorted as spam. I make it work for me. :-) Wendy On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Wendy > > I too have had many a conversation re digests, along the lines of why use > them but some (many) are set in their ways and have no desire to change > > As to being a simple solution? far from it for the majority of people > > As to using rules or filters, you haven't a chance with a great many > subscribers, they don't know what they are and don't want to, they manage > what they have and do not see such things as filters as a step forward, but > only as something else they have to learn and frankly many are simply not > interested in learning more about computers, as long as it works its good > enough > > Having said that, I used to be an ardent fan of filters with Outlook > Express, but when I moved to Thunderbird I soon realised the futility of > them > > Thunderbirds search is so good I have no need of filters at all > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 08-Apr-18 9:51 PM, Wendy Howard wrote: > >> A simple answer to the problem is to not get the digest, and manage the >> incoming mail adequately. Then they'd have all the mail there, ready to >> read when they wanted to do so, and in the meantime it would not be >> cluttering up their Inboxes > >