unknown
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
If it annoys you (or anyone), I apologize for my first line!
I was hoping you would chip in! I'm very happy to start a Yahoo
Group, and I'm bound to say (though I'm getting on in years ;-) and
possibly don't notice things so much - yes folks, I shall soon be
drawing my 84% old age pension (I haven't been in this country (NL)
since the age of 15, so don't get the full pension)) that in recent
months and possibly years Yahoo has become slightly more transparent
and considerably more reliable, to the extent that I now have few
complaints if any.
My point is simply that if Katrina thinks Google does things better,
she could well be right! (I nearl;y wrote 'is probably right', but I
don't want to overstate things. After all, what do I know? I mean,
does knowing absolutely everything there is to be known about Eudora
and lots (perhaps everything) about Opera mean that one knows all
about mailing lists?
I'll shut up now. As far as I'm concerned, the only important thing
is that it would be perfectly possible for this list to continue
practically seamlessly (especially if the new list adopts the old
[OU] identifier) under another host.
Harry
PS Having discovered that the BBC site that doesn't work for me also
doesn't work for some using IE, I shall be returning to 10.60. Not
that I'm claiming 10.60 is bugless...
--=====================_19013093==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 01:41 03/07/2010 CEST, Katrina Knight (yes, /the/ Katrina
Knight) wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">At 06:05 PM 07/02/2010 Harry
Lake wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">(There are other hosts for
groups I believe, but Yahoo is the only one I'm familiar
with.)</blockquote><br>
Yahoo's list are rather poorly behaved.
I was hoping you would chip in! I'm very happy to start a Yahoo
Group, and I'm bound to say (though I'm getting on in years ;-) and
possibly don't notice things so much - yes folks, I shall soon be
drawing my 84% old age pension (I haven't been in this country (NL)
since the age of 15, so don't get the full pension)) that in recent
months and possibly years Yahoo has become slightly more transparent
and considerably more reliable, to the extent that I now have few
complaints if any.
My point is simply that if Katrina thinks Google does things better,
she could well be right! (I nearl;y wrote 'is probably right', but I
don't want to overstate things. After all, what do I know? I mean,
does knowing absolutely everything there is to be known about Eudora
and lots (perhaps everything) about Opera mean that one knows all
about mailing lists?
I'll shut up now. As far as I'm concerned, the only important thing
is that it would be perfectly possible for this list to continue
practically seamlessly (especially if the new list adopts the old
[OU] identifier) under another host.
Harry
PS Having discovered that the BBC site that doesn't work for me also
doesn't work for some using IE, I shall be returning to 10.60. Not
that I'm claiming 10.60 is bugless...
--=====================_19013093==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 01:41 03/07/2010 CEST, Katrina Knight (yes, /the/ Katrina
Knight) wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">At 06:05 PM 07/02/2010 Harry
Lake wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">(There are other hosts for
groups I believe, but Yahoo is the only one I'm familiar
with.)</blockquote><br>
Yahoo's list are rather poorly behaved.