Hi Barbara No, to be a spammer and post to the list you have to join the list and be vetted and accepted by admin Secondly Rootsweb do not accept either HTML or attachments the way that virus & trojans are spread The only way you could be infected via a list is to click on a link in a list post, clearly you wouldn't do that with an unsolicited url from an unknown source And if you have a good anti virus it should pick that up anyway (not that I would suggest anyone test that) So no you are in no more danger now than you were before Think positive Barbara :-) So far since the change, I have had no AOL or Yahoo mails in spam at all As to the conspiracy theory, I think you have been reading to many spy thrillers <g> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 13/07/2014 21:59, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Karen, > > This looks more like playing into the hands of spammers Right now I > could be a spammer by addressing this as I did and have a virus, > malware or what ever else a spammer might conceal and let it loose as > soon as someone opens the mail. At least when an email arrives with > a name that I have not seen before and the topic looks suspicious, I > can delete it without opening. The new way, every email will be > addressed alike for each list and no one will know who the spammer is > who sent it until after we infected. > > I am coming to believe that shut down of rootsweb a week ago, was to > set this up and I also believe it was to discourage all of us and > force us to go Ancestry and pay for it. > > I do hope I am wrong but I just don't trust the evil people who are > lurking in the background of all internet activities. > > Just my thoughts about it.:} > > All the best Barbara in MA [email protected]

Hi Karen, This looks more like playing into the hands of spammers Right now I could be a spammer by addressing this as I did and have a virus, malware or what ever else a spammer might conceal and let it loose as soon as someone opens the mail. At least when an email arrives with a name that I have not seen before and the topic looks suspicious, I can delete it without opening. The new way, every email will be addressed alike for each list and no one will know who the spammer is who sent it until after we infected. I am coming to believe that shut down of rootsweb a week ago, was to set this up and I also believe it was to discourage all of us and force us to go Ancestry and pay for it. I do hope I am wrong but I just don't trust the evil people who are lurking in the background of all internet activities. Just my thoughts about it.:} All the best Barbara in MA [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:18:35 PM Subject: [ROOTS-L] Heads Up ... Some changes coming in how to respond to ROOTS-L messages Morning, all! I'm not sure if the changes have arrived for this list, or quite what they'll look like (don't have any messages in my inbox from the list this morning), but ... due to changes that ISPs have been implementing to reduce spam, it has become important that messages FROM RootsWeb say they're from RootsWeb, rather than from the person who sent the message to the mailing list. So if all the messages are "From: [email protected]", then how are you to tell which are from me (kare[email protected]) and which are from someone else, etc.? I don't know ... perhaps the original sender will be in the Reply-To line, or in the Sender line, or elsewhere ... or nowhere! We'll have to watch and see. Meanwhile, let me recommend two good habits to use in general, but especially here and now. ;-) 1. When you hit "reply" ... check to see WHO you're replying to and if that's who you had in mind. (For the who/whom crowd, what I just wrote makes me wince but I'm gonna let it be.) 2. Include who you are and your e-mail address at the end of your message (and whack off ANYTHING else ... it's a mailing list, everyone saw the earlier message, you just annoy the people in digest mode by endlessly repeating it). Thus: Karen [email protected] ROOTS-L Administrative Team ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to [email protected] and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

David, perhaps you misunderstood me, I didn't say I had any problems with Outlook, only that I wouldn't use the latest Outlook.com I had Outlook for several years (Office 2000 if I remember rightly), then used Outlook Express (I can't recall why I changed to OE now but think it was change of computer and the need for a further licence) I used OE for several years and was apprehensive when I found it wouldn't work with Win 7, so knowing the inevitable would happen at some point and XP would die I went over to Thunderbird, not only was it like OE but I found it far better and have stayed with it I was under the impression that Outlook went west when Outlook Express did with Win 7 so thanks for straightening that out Was I right in saying that Outlook is part of MS Office ? For the average user I think the original Outlook did far more than was needed, I can't speak for its web based version Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 13/07/2014 18:16, [email protected] wrote: > Nivard, > > Just a clarification, your statement that "neither work with Windows 7" is > not quite correct. I have used Outlook at work before I retired ever since > it first came out, though obviously not with Windows 7, and love it. Now in > retirement, I've gone through a couple of upgrades here at home and now use > Outlook 2007 and am very happy with it running in Windows 7 Home Premium for > many years now. To be truthful, you are the first person I've ever heard of > who had troubles with any version of Outlook. . . .other than too many > features to learn. :-) If you had problems with Outlook in Windows 7, then > it pretty much had to be a local issue of some sort, but it definitely DOES > work very nicely in Win7. I don't know about Outlook Express now, because > I've never it so cannot say much one way or another about it. > > > David E. Cann > [email protected]

Hi Nivard, I probably did when I lost it.:} If I want to send something without the email heading as an attachment or just want it to as clean as possible, I used word to do that. A business letter, for example. I put the header as I always do when writing such letters - address and date. and to whom in the company I am writing. Outlook probably is connected with Office but it "cams" with the connection to Word. THe way it is now, I haven't figured out if there is a document written that was not meant to be sent. It keeps about a half dozen and the rest disappear -pooof!. Is it hard to get Thunderbird to be connected with word> My computer guy has threatened me with if I download anything without asking him first..:} I think I will have him come - he has been here 2 times in the past week and half. I wish I had know about this before. Thank you for telling me.:} If I had an auto that changed every night from the steering on the right to the steering on the left, or ran on gasoline today and over-night decided it would like diesel better and the next night decided to change the locks, and the next something else. Do you know how long I would put up with it before getting another car? A lot sooner than I am with this computer. All the best, take good care I am taking the opportunity to have some fun but there is a thread of truth in it.:} Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2014 12:43:27 PM Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] in Outlook, Reply and Reply All Hi Barbara Pre Windows 7 there was Outlook Express and Outlook two separate programs (why they used the same name has baffled many of us) Neither work with Windows 7 They now have Outlook.com which is a web based email client but as far as I know its part of Microsoft Office ? I am sure someone will tell me if its not Personally I wouldn't touch it, there are much better alternatives such as Thunderbird with gmail (both free) but it will work with your Comcast as well Now why would you write an email in Word then want to copy and paste into something else? If you were used to Outlook I would recommend trying Thunderbird You write your email in Thunderbird and send, job done There are plenty of bells and whistles with Thunderbird but you don't have to use them, its very adaptable (have we had this conversation before? I am getting a distinct case of Deja Vu :-) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 13/07/2014 16:23, [email protected] wrote: > > Now I am totally confused! > > I had Outlook and it was "connected" to WORD so that I could write > something in WORD and then send it from there. I lost Outlook and > wanted it back and was told MS no longer had Outlook =. I knew MS > had dis-continued Outlook Express and have tried to adapt by saving > as, and then hunting it down in the Documents list, and then > highlighting it, and then pasting it in a new email. Every time I do > it the air seems to get blue. I know someone is going to say use the > clipboard but I can't figure that out so it is useless and it is > probably connected to Outlook anyway. SO Outlook is still available? > > All the best Barbara in MA [email protected] ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to [email protected] and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Barbara Pre Windows 7 there was Outlook Express and Outlook two separate programs (why they used the same name has baffled many of us) Neither work with Windows 7 They now have Outlook.com which is a web based email client but as far as I know its part of Microsoft Office ? I am sure someone will tell me if its not Personally I wouldn't touch it, there are much better alternatives such as Thunderbird with gmail (both free) but it will work with your Comcast as well Now why would you write an email in Word then want to copy and paste into something else? If you were used to Outlook I would recommend trying Thunderbird You write your email in Thunderbird and send, job done There are plenty of bells and whistles with Thunderbird but you don't have to use them, its very adaptable (have we had this conversation before? I am getting a distinct case of Deja Vu :-) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 13/07/2014 16:23, [email protected] wrote: > > Now I am totally confused! > > I had Outlook and it was "connected" to WORD so that I could write > something in WORD and then send it from there. I lost Outlook and > wanted it back and was told MS no longer had Outlook =. I knew MS > had dis-continued Outlook Express and have tried to adapt by saving > as, and then hunting it down in the Documents list, and then > highlighting it, and then pasting it in a new email. Every time I do > it the air seems to get blue. I know someone is going to say use the > clipboard but I can't figure that out so it is useless and it is > probably connected to Outlook anyway. SO Outlook is still available? > > All the best Barbara in MA [email protected]

Barbara in MA, Who are the "evil people?" The mailing lists use the plain text format to prevent viruses from being sent to list, because you cannot make attachments to the mail. Rootsweb wasn't shut down by choice it was the victim of a DDoS attack. The new changes to the mailing list has to do with the number of subscribers who were bouncing off because new changes to the way ISP's and other email clients handle mail to cut down on spam. There is nothing nefarious going on here. It's just keeping up with email changes. Sincerely, J. Asche On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:59 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Karen, > > This looks more like playing into the hands of spammers Right now I could be a spammer by addressing this as I did and have a virus, malware or what ever else a spammer might conceal and let it loose as soon as someone opens the mail. At least when an email arrives with a name that I have not seen before and the topic looks suspicious, I can delete it without opening. The new way, every email will be addressed alike for each list and no one will know who the spammer is who sent it until after we infected. > > I am coming to believe that shut down of rootsweb a week ago, was to set this up and I also believe it was to discourage all of us and force us to go Ancestry and pay for it. > > I do hope I am wrong but I just don't trust the evil people who are lurking in the background of all internet activities. > > Just my thoughts about it.:} > > All the best > Barbara in MA > [email protected] >

Hi Sue If its putting [email protected] address thats all you need to do (plus change the subject line) There is no need to copy and paste the other addresses unless you want to mail them direct Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 13/07/2014 14:59, [email protected] wrote: > In Outlook, Reply and Reply All puts only [email protected] into the To: > address line FOR THE DIGEST. > So, to include a subscriber in a Reply, one needs to copy/paste/type other > recipient's email address(s) into the address line of choice. (To: Cc: or > Bcc:). Sue A

Now I am totally confused! I had Outlook and it was "connected" to WORD so that I could write something in WORD and then send it from there. I lost Outlook and wanted it back and was told MS no longer had Outlook =. I knew MS had dis-continued Outlook Express and have tried to adapt by saving as, and then hunting it down in the Documents list, and then highlighting it, and then pasting it in a new email. Every time I do it the air seems to get blue. I know someone is going to say use the clipboard but I can't figure that out so it is useless and it is probably connected to Outlook anyway. SO Outlook is still available? All the best Barbara in MA [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2014 10:33:27 AM Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] in Outlook, Reply and Reply All Hi Sue If its putting [email protected] address thats all you need to do (plus change the subject line) There is no need to copy and paste the other addresses unless you want to mail them direct Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 13/07/2014 14:59, [email protected] wrote: > In Outlook, Reply and Reply All puts only [email protected] into the To: > address line FOR THE DIGEST. > So, to include a subscriber in a Reply, one needs to copy/paste/type other > recipient's email address(s) into the address line of choice. (To: Cc: or > Bcc:). Sue A ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to [email protected] and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Nivard, Just a clarification, your statement that "neither work with Windows 7" is not quite correct. I have used Outlook at work before I retired ever since it first came out, though obviously not with Windows 7, and love it. Now in retirement, I've gone through a couple of upgrades here at home and now use Outlook 2007 and am very happy with it running in Windows 7 Home Premium for many years now. To be truthful, you are the first person I've ever heard of who had troubles with any version of Outlook. . . .other than too many features to learn. :-) If you had problems with Outlook in Windows 7, then it pretty much had to be a local issue of some sort, but it definitely DOES work very nicely in Win7. I don't know about Outlook Express now, because I've never it so cannot say much one way or another about it. David E. Cann [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2014 12:43 PM To: r[email protected] Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] in Outlook, Reply and Reply All Hi Barbara Pre Windows 7 there was Outlook Express and Outlook two separate programs (why they used the same name has baffled many of us) Neither work with Windows 7 They now have Outlook.com which is a web based email client but as far as I know its part of Microsoft Office ? I am sure someone will tell me if its not <snip>

One useage of "Lot" refers to a collection of things, especially an article or collection of articles at an auction. A pallet of a particular item/collection is referred to as a "lot". So - One (1) Lot of vegetables. Not a measurement, but the entirety of something. Oldgleaner On 7/11/2014 8:15 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Not a definitive answer, but something to contemplate: I would suggest > that they are not referring to a measurement of vegetables (i.e., three > bushels of potatoes, a bushel of carrots, etc.) but a measurement of the > plot of land used to grow the vegetables, probably the plot of land set > aside on the farm as the "kitchen garden". You may wish to pursue that > as a possibility. > > [email protected] wrote: >> This will probably be an easy answer for some of you but it has me >> stumped just now. The probate 1850 Wake Co., NC lists farm animals and >> crops provided for the widow's yearly support. Number of bushels of >> crops and cows etc. are specifically listed and then "a lot of >> vegetables". I am assisting a cousin in preparing an article about the >> contested probate and we need to know what "a lot" means. We assume it's >> a measurement; however, searches have not revealed any measurement >> except a very old one at Wiki where a "lot" is a term meaning only a few >> grams from Middle Ages to 1900. The entire list is so specific that I >> doubt it, but could a "lot" be simply used in 1850 as it is today? >> >> ===== >> If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to >> [email protected] and ask for the digest... >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ===== > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to [email protected] and ask for the digest... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

** Reply to message from [email protected] on Sun, 13 Jul 2014 01:00:42 -0600 > I'm not sure if the changes have arrived for this list, or quite what they'll > look like (don't have any messages in my inbox from the list this morning), but > ... due to changes that ISPs have been implementing to reduce spam, it has > become important that messages FROM RootsWeb say they're from RootsWeb, rather > than from the person who sent the message to the mailing list. The thing about this is that some of the biggest spammers are the ones that came up with this scheme. Hotmail, google, and yahoo do not want to receive spam but do not mind sending it so they came up with this ridicules idea, it is causing problems for many lists. -- Robert Blair see my genealogy web pages http://what4now.com

In Outlook, Reply and Reply All puts only [email protected] into the To: address line FOR THE DIGEST. So, to include a subscriber in a Reply, one needs to copy/paste/type other recipient's email address(s) into the address line of choice. (To: Cc: or Bcc:). Sue A

Strange, Thunderbird works exactly as it should Even gmail online works only not as good as Thunderbird as it doesn't have a reply to list option, but reply goes to sender, reply all brings up yours, Karens and Roots addresses Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 12/07/2014 19:31, [email protected] wrote: > Oh, worse than I thought. > Using Outlook as an email client. My "reply" and "reply all" produced > Karen's eddress. > I had to copy/paste the rootsweb eddress to get this to "reply all." > Oh, well, I guess that'll keep me from posting things to the whole list that > I shouldn't. <G> > Pat > In Tucson

Oh Barbara Don't be like that, I wouldn't have the pleasure of talking to you if you ditched the computer <g> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 12/07/2014 17:40, [email protected] wrote: > > Each day I get less enchanted with the computer and am feeling I got along without it for years and can get along without it again. > > Books are fine and easier on the eyes to read and getting out to go to places for information is better for my temperament. > > All the best > Barbara > [email protected]

Hi Karen and all Personally I have not been troubled by the changes, whereas some have reported their ire I use Thunderbird with gmail and download my mail, each shows the From, the Reply to and the To addresses so I can see who they are from, just as I did before (just in a different order in the mail header) The main part I think you may have missed off is that you should use "Reply All" (rather than just reply) Using reply will send to the original poster and not the list In Thunderbird I have the options of Reply (to OP) Reply to List, and Reply All, which brings up the List and any other address in the post address fields As has always been the case, as you rightly say, the best practice, whatever method you use, is to *check* the addresses you are sending your post/reply to Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 12/07/2014 17:18, [email protected] wrote: > Morning, all! > > I'm not sure if the changes have arrived for this list, or quite what they'll look like (don't have any messages in my inbox from the list this morning), but ... due to changes that ISPs have been implementing to reduce spam, it has become important that messages FROM RootsWeb say they're from RootsWeb, rather than from the person who sent the message to the mailing list. > > So if all the messages are "From: [email protected]", then how are you to tell which are from me ([email protected]) and which are from someone else, etc.? I don't know ... perhaps the original sender will be in the Reply-To line, or in the Sender line, or elsewhere ... or nowhere! We'll have to watch and see. > > Meanwhile, let me recommend two good habits to use in general, but especially here and now. ;-) > > 1. When you hit "reply" ... check to see WHO you're replying to and if that's who you had in mind. (For the who/whom crowd, what I just wrote makes me wince but I'm gonna let it be.) > > 2. Include who you are and your e-mail address at the end of your message (and whack off ANYTHING else ... it's a mailing list, everyone saw the earlier message, you just annoy the people in digest mode by endlessly repeating it). Thus: > > Karen

Each day I get less enchanted with the computer and am feeling I got along without it for years and can get along without it again. Books are fine and easier on the eyes to read and getting out to go to places for information is better for my temperament. All the best Barbara [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:18:35 PM Subject: [ROOTS-L] Heads Up ... Some changes coming in how to respond to ROOTS-L messages Morning, all! I'm not sure if the changes have arrived for this list, or quite what they'll look like (don't have any messages in my inbox from the list this morning), but ... due to changes that ISPs have been implementing to reduce spam, it has become important that messages FROM RootsWeb say they're from RootsWeb, rather than from the person who sent the message to the mailing list. So if all the messages are "From: [email protected]", then how are you to tell which are from me ([email protected]) and which are from someone else, etc.? I don't know ... perhaps the original sender will be in the Reply-To line, or in the Sender line, or elsewhere ... or nowhere! We'll have to watch and see. Meanwhile, let me recommend two good habits to use in general, but especially here and now. ;-) 1. When you hit "reply" ... check to see WHO you're replying to and if that's who you had in mind. (For the who/whom crowd, what I just wrote makes me wince but I'm gonna let it be.) 2. Include who you are and your e-mail address at the end of your message (and whack off ANYTHING else ... it's a mailing list, everyone saw the earlier message, you just annoy the people in digest mode by endlessly repeating it). Thus: Karen [email protected] ROOTS-L Administrative Team ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to [email protected] and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 7/12/2014 10:36 AM, [email protected] wrote: > The main part I think you may have missed off is that you should use > "Reply All" (rather than just reply) When using Firefox Thunderbird, don't click big part of "Reply to List" button, click on arrow to the right of it to see other option, "Reply to All" and use that one. (I am using latest version and haven't found a way to separate that button.) David Samuelsen

Oh, worse than I thought. Using Outlook as an email client. My "reply" and "reply all" produced Karen's eddress. I had to copy/paste the rootsweb eddress to get this to "reply all." Oh, well, I guess that'll keep me from posting things to the whole list that I shouldn't. <G> Pat In Tucson

Morning, all! I'm not sure if the changes have arrived for this list, or quite what they'll look like (don't have any messages in my inbox from the list this morning), but ... due to changes that ISPs have been implementing to reduce spam, it has become important that messages FROM RootsWeb say they're from RootsWeb, rather than from the person who sent the message to the mailing list. So if all the messages are "From: [email protected]", then how are you to tell which are from me ([email protected]) and which are from someone else, etc.? I don't know ... perhaps the original sender will be in the Reply-To line, or in the Sender line, or elsewhere ... or nowhere! We'll have to watch and see. Meanwhile, let me recommend two good habits to use in general, but especially here and now. ;-) 1. When you hit "reply" ... check to see WHO you're replying to and if that's who you had in mind. (For the who/whom crowd, what I just wrote makes me wince but I'm gonna let it be.) 2. Include who you are and your e-mail address at the end of your message (and whack off ANYTHING else ... it's a mailing list, everyone saw the earlier message, you just annoy the people in digest mode by endlessly repeating it). Thus: Karen [email protected] ROOTS-L Administrative Team

Not a definitive answer, but something to contemplate: I would suggest that they are not referring to a measurement of vegetables (i.e., three bushels of potatoes, a bushel of carrots, etc.) but a measurement of the plot of land used to grow the vegetables, probably the plot of land set aside on the farm as the "kitchen garden". You may wish to pursue that as a possibility. [email protected] wrote: > > This will probably be an easy answer for some of you but it has me > stumped just now. The probate 1850 Wake Co., NC lists farm animals and > crops provided for the widow's yearly support. Number of bushels of > crops and cows etc. are specifically listed and then "a lot of > vegetables". I am assisting a cousin in preparing an article about the > contested probate and we need to know what "a lot" means. We assume it's > a measurement; however, searches have not revealed any measurement > except a very old one at Wiki where a "lot" is a term meaning only a few > grams from Middle Ages to 1900. The entire list is so specific that I > doubt it, but could a "lot" be simply used in 1850 as it is today? > > ===== > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to > [email protected] and ask for the digest... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message