I agree...they put us at first under "technology", now under "miscellaneous". I have no control over that... but a Whole Lot of people have found the list, so I guess it's OK. Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald Whitney" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 9:49 AM Subject: [SP] Seasons Greetings > Hello all! > > I have been reviewing the archives and decided to subscribe again until I > get too busy and have to unsubscribe again. > > One thing - I had a heck of a time trying to find the mailing list on > RootsWeb so I could subscribe. Finally had to do a google to find you. > Seems like it should be easier to find a mailing list from the RootsWeb > home page. Of course, it may have been staring me in the face and I just > missed it. > > I noticed a lengthy discussion in the archives about using Iomega ZIP and > JAZ disks to archive images. I don't want to revisit the arguments pro and > con, but I would like to relate the following to those who use them. > > Within the last couple of days I pulled out a ZIP disk to recover an image > that I needed. While trying to open the folder I found images that > wouldn't open because of bad data. I ran the Zip and Jaz testing system > developed by Steve Gibson http:/grc.com and found that I had some bad > sections that couldn't be read. So, I transferred all of the images that > could be saved to my hard drive and reformatted the Zip disk. Then it > tested OK. I had the lost images on other backups (I never rely on just > one) so I didn't lose anything. Point is, we need to test our Iomega disks > every so often. > > If you are not familiar with the Zip test, it is called Trouble in > Paradise, TIP.2.1 and can be found at the above URL. The beauty of it is > when it finds errors on a disk it moves the data to a good sector and saves > it. And it's free. Of course, that only works if the data isn't so far > gone that it can't be read. > > Happy ending - I tested the rest of my archived disks and they were all OK. > > Ron > > >

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 02:43 pm, Ann Winder wrote: > I agree...they put us at first under "technology", now under > "miscellaneous". I have no control over that... but a Whole Lot of > people > have found the list, so I guess it's OK. Yes, but once on,they can't get off. The unsubscribe procedure doesn't work. One reason: if you write to an address with the word "request" in it, it means that it goes to a human for action. Someone is either not reading these requests from people wanting to unsubscribe, or is unaware that he/she has to take action to unsubscribe those people. Frank John Frank Nowikowski Buenos Aires, Argentina [email protected]

I am the "someone" who administers this list. I DO NOT receive the "requests", a machine receives them and acts accordingly. Any thank-you's, pleases, added email addresses, etc., only serve to confuse the software that reads subscribe and unsubscribe messages. There is a problem, in that if you send the message to tech.rootsweb.com, you do not get a mail failure message of any sort. Those message get swallowed up by the machine and spit out into limbo. I have no control over that, either. I have changed the welcome messages for scanners-photos-l and scanners-photos-d, now that I know the address was changed. Sorry for any inconveniences. Ann Winder Listowner of Winder-L, Sifford-L, Scanners-Photos-L Homepage: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~annieron > > Yes, but once on,they can't get off. The unsubscribe procedure doesn't > work. > > One reason: if you write to an address with the word "request" in it, it > means that it goes to a human for action. Someone is either not reading > these requests from people wanting to unsubscribe, or is unaware that > he/she has to take action to unsubscribe those people. >