I vote to only have the searchable ones Karen is providing until she gets the "front door" fixed so that all our archives will have protection from spammers for our e-addresses. Carol At 10:58 AM 12/8/97 -0600, william Boulineau wrote: >Okay, everyone give me a vote, yes or no, to have out list archived. I'll >post the results to the list. Have your vote in NLT 12/12/97.-Bill > >---------- >> From: Karen Isaacson <karen@rand.org> >> To: listowners-announce@rootsweb.com >> Subject: STATUS: Archives of RootsWeb messages >> Date: Sunday, December 07, 1997 10:08 PM >> >> As many of you know, I hit a little hitch earlier this week when I went >to >> index the archived messages from the various mailing lists: I ran out of >> disk space. We initially thought we'd delay the roll-out of the >> searchable archives until Brian could purchase and install a new, larger, >> drive, but given only ten or so of the mailing lists were not indexed, it >> seemed a shame to not make the 2000+ ones that were available. >> >> It's =very= much in beta test right now (like, I only finished the code >> ten minutes ago), so hold off on announcing this to your listmembers for, >> oh, 24 hours or so, in case something goes boom! and we have to take it >> offline for tuning. But if you want to give it a whirl, take a look at >> >> http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl >> >> It does assume you know the name of the list you want to search. But >it's >> not too fussy about how you type it: for the SMITH list, you can ask for >> smith, Smith, SMITH, smiTh-L, and SMith-D, and still succeed. It >includes >> messages through about a week ago. I'll add new messages every week >> or two. (It took literally hours to do the indexing, and we'll have >> to turn the search off whenever we reindex, so this will only be done >> every few weeks unless we find a solution.) >> >> We haven't turned on the threaded archives for all lists yet (and we >won't >> for those who have specifically opted out) -- Brian still needs to make >> some tweaks to the system to protect against web-crawling >> address-sniffers. (This isn't a danger with the non-threaded search >engine >> I just put up, where the messages are hidden behind the search engine.) >> If you want the threaded message base =now=, rather than waiting >> for the tweaks to be made, just subscribe to your list the address >> >> archiver@lists.rootsweb.com >> >> Besides the lists that definitely don't want to participate (you know who >> you are <grin>), the following lists aren't available for searching due >to >> space constraints: >> >> GEN-MEDIEVAL >> GEN-SLAVIC >> GENCMP >> GENMSC >> GEN-DE >> GEN-FF >> GEN-FR >> >> and a handful of non-genealogy lists. I have a workaround in mind, >> and those lists may be available as soon as late tomorrow or >> Wednesday. >> >> If your list is available for searching, and you didn't want that, you >need >> to do two things. First, add "archiver@lists.rootsweb.com" to the reject >> list for your mailing list (you can access this from the "edit selected >> files" button at the bottom of your utility page). Second, write to >> listmaster@rootsweb.com and ask that the message base for your list be >> removed. (Please, don't ask for this unless the message base is there. >> I've already complied with requests to leave certain lists out, and >> believe I've done so in all cases.) >> >> If you asked me to discard your earlier messages and start fresh, you'll >> find that the search page comes up OK for your list, but when you go to >> search, you get bat guano. Not to worry -- that's because I discarded >> your earlier messages and haven't yet imported the new ones, so there's >> nothing to search. >> >> Finally, this is an interim approach. The proverbial "half a loaf". ;-) >> The system we want to have is one where you type something in the search >> box, are returned a list of possible hits, you then select one of the >> hits, and presto! are in a threaded message base so that, if you want, >you >> can scoot up and down the thread that contained the message of interest, >> post a response to the sender or to the list, as appropriate. The >current >> system won't do that... I also don't have control (or don't know that I >> have control) over the format of the page of matches, nor of the >displayed >> message. Lots of room for improvement. Stay tuned? >> >> Karen >> > >