

| Subject: | Re: Was Re: vanagon Digest - 15 Aug 2010 - Special issue (#2010-808):Now renaming Digest posts |
| From: | Michael Sullivan |
| Date: | Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:49:45 -0500 |
That's good to know, Bill. Guess there is more than one way to skin a cat. :-) Michael in San Antonio 91GL Weekender AT 2.1L 'Gringo' On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Bill Glenn <idahobill@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:33:57 -0500, Michael Sullivan > <sandwichhead@GMAIL.COM> wrote: > > >I find it hard to follow posts(or even read them) that come from the > digest... > > In Digest mode (which I prefer), the postings to the Vanagon List are > accumulated and sent in a group as one email, sometimes once a day, > sometimes as many as four or five times a day, depending on the volume of > list traffic. The messages themselves are no different than the postings > sent individually, they are just delayed somewhat. Regardless which way > you receive the postings, it's easy to review the thread and check for the > latest additions: > 1. Note the subject, and whether or not the first letter of the first word > of the subject line is capitalized (it makes a difference where you will > find that subject) > 2. Go to the archives: http://gerry.vanagon.com/archives/vanagon.html > 3. Click on the most-recent week, at the top of the page. > 4. Find your subject. They are in alphabetical order, capitalized-first- > letter listings first, followed by a second set of alphabetized subjects > not having the first letter capitalized. > 5. Click on that subject and the entire thread is indexed in chronological > order. You can easily and quickly check for the latest additions, or re- > read the entire thread if you wish, and reply to whatever message you wish > right from the appropriate page, rather than adding to the end of the > thread, which can sometimes cause confusion if it's not clear to which of > the messages in the thread you are replying. > > Though I sometimes forget to do this, it takes little time, and allows one > to: > a. See the earlier posts of a thread that may have been missed, or re-read > the original question. > b. Reply to a specific post, as noted above. > c. Avoid redundancy; someone else may have already said what you were going > to say. > > Bill >
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »