Graham, I think that the reason that your messages were bounced is that the Rootsweb mailing lists don't allow attachments. So either you should convert your Wrod documents to text and include them in-line in your message, or I could put them on the Web pages - which is perhaps a good idea anyway. This is a very useful piece of work, and it will be very helpful to have these "checksums". I clearly only got part of the Wilts Lovelocks so far, and I need to do some more digging! However, I believe I did get all the LovelUcks, because I didn't do this search by county. Regards, James Graham Lovelock wrote: >James > >Help! I seem to be unable to get messages to the Lovelock List all of a >sudden - they keep bouncing back at me from the LOVELOCK-L-request address >at rootsweb. Can you circulate this for me - it's a follow-up to my first >message tonight which went OK. > >Many thanks > >Graham > > >Not sure what is happening tonight - my machine seems to be scrambling > > >>addresses, and the two messages below that I thought I had sent everybody >> >> >went to the > > >>L-Request address instead, which has probably got somebody somewhere >>scratching their head. I hope this one works - I have typed each character >>in the address rather than picking from the address book. >> >>FIRST MESSAGE WAS: >> >>Dear All >> >>Having raised a bit of a scare, perhaps, with my last message, thought I >>ought to put together something like the attached file which lists all the >>so-called "County" names for LOVELOCK FEMALES as transcribed by (or for) >> >> >the > > >>PRO, and for each name the number of Females occurring. The total is 851, >>but only because one of the Croydon entries comes up twice, making the >> >> >real > > >>total 850 as I said earlier. >> >>Will follow up with similar for MALES asap. >> >>Graham >> >> >> >>SECOND MESSAGE WAS: >> >>...... and the "Counties" for the Males as promised. >> >>Graham >> >>Apologies wherever due for whatever confusion I have been causing. >> >>And goodnight! >> >> >>