In a recent note, Darren Evans-Young said:
> Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:24:32 -0500
>
> I am *seriously* considering changing IBM-MAIN (2001-2006) archive
> access to subscribers only, and I may not have a choice. We have
>
It appears this is already in effect. I just attempted to
view t
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> In a recent note, Darren Evans-Young said:
>
> > Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:24:32 -0500
> >
> > I am *seriously* considering changing IBM-MAIN (2001-2006) archive
> > access to subscribers only, and I may not have a choice.
>It appears this is already in effect. I just attempted to
>view this month's archive index, and was required to log in.
I was required to log in, just to view this message (I get the digest
through e-mail and then click the message number for those messages, I want
to read).
>Will this mean
On 5/16/2006 3:12 AM, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM wrote:
isn't it useless to protect your archives? The newsgroup version of the list is
fully available in Google archives, so what is your purpose of protecting the
list archives?
As I read Darren's posting, the purpose is to avoid a load on his
I usually go straight to
http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.ibm-main before I even try IBM.
Jon
I will be most disappointed if indeed the search engines would no longer
have access. I use Google a lot to find information I need to do my job.
And you can rest assured that I tend to o
I guess it's too late to provide reasons, but sinece I use the "archive"
exclusively I want go on record. In the past I've logged on only when
posting or responding, and then without setting a cookie. To do otherwise
is to loose the "already read" indication. That is now lost so viewing the
arc
On Tue, 16 May 2006 15:17:00 -0500, Patrick O'Keefe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I guess it's too late to provide reasons, but sinece I use the "archive"
>exclusively I want go on record. In the past I've logged on only when
>posting or responding, and then without setting a cookie. To do otherw
On Tue, 16 May 2006, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM wrote:
>Darren,
>
>isn't it useless to protect your archives? The newsgroup version of the
>list is fully available in Google archives, so what is your purpose of
>protecting the list archives?
>
>Kees.
The protection is not for email addresses necessari
8 matches
Mail list logo
