Hi all,

Our hosts at St. Johns University are having problems with archives growing
too fast. They say:

>We do have a long term problem, however, with disk storage.  One of the main
>functions of this site is to serve as a library of the most current
>information on some very important issues.   The list archives, however, are
>growing at a rapid pace and will need to be upgraded  within the next 3
months.

They go on to point out:

>The two most wasteful uses of listserv space are overzealous signatures and
>excessive quoting.  One effect of putting a limit on the number of lines in a
>message would be to cut down on both.  No one would question a limitation on
>signatures, but being able to quote a previous message is essential to
continue
>a discussion.  Quotes, however, can be used judiciously.

This list does have some problems with excessive quoting. The message goes
on to say that if things don't get better they may have to set a maximum
message length of 100 lines. While this would not affect this list, it
would have devastating results for a couple of my other lists, which are
research oriented and have only a few, but rather long posts.

I personally feel what is quoted, and it should only be a few lines, should
precede the response. If the quote isn't important enough to be in front, I
think it needn't be there at all. Another option, which entails a lot of
work, is to edit the archives and delete all quoting that comes after the
response and all signatures. Any volunteers?

So I ask that subscribers do their best to heed these requests.

Thanks,

Don.