Hello Thom.

10 Mar 08 02:41, you wrote to me:

 TL> Jeff Smith wrote in a message to Jeff Bowman:


 JS>>     Now you've done it.  I would be concerned about placing
 JS>> limits decided on by one or a few people. If the majority of the
 JS>> users agreed to a limit then I would be ok with it. Maybe a
 JS>> longer time period between when echos expire and when they can be
 JS>> updated/added by someone OTHER than the listed updater/moderator.

 TL> That was tried in the past(a grace period)....it simply menat that the
 TL> folks who wanted to relist an echo just waited a bit longer to do it.

     That's the problem. If a grace period was used as intended for those
that occasionally for whatever reason don't get their update in then ok.

     But as you say many will just think they have a little longer to get
it done. Just thinking out loud about possibilities that might help the
situation. I don't recall. Was the grace period an extra long period before
the listing was dropped. This might have already been tried but I was
thinking of a period where the echo listing could be dropped (Set inactive)
but not deleted for a specific X number of days. During that inactive period
the only person that could update that echo would be the listed moderator
and/or their messenger. Beyond that time the echo tag would be available
to anyone to update.


 JS>> BTW, Thom I never received the message from you that Jeff is
 JS>> replying to.

 TL> Hmmmmmm,  I send everything to Ross....so if some folks see the
 TL> messages and some don't, there may be a broken link beyond Ross's
 TL> system.

     I get mail from Bob Seaborn. I also didn't see your "Sync Echo"
message in the Sync echo if you (re)posted it. Course that echo is now
passthrough here.


 TL> cya,
 TL> thom
 TL> http://www.echolist.net/
 TL> --- GEcho 1.20/Pro

Jeff

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503