I've never liked archives.  I had the experience of new people coming
onto my forum, browsing the archives, becoming incensed at some
previous article or other that had mentioned them and demanding that I
remove said offending articles.  (Mine are a contentious lot.)  My
solution was to drop archives entirely.

One option that I've always thought should be available and I still
think it's a good idea is an expiration time on archives.  I'd like to
be able to say, for example: keep only the last N weeks worth of
archives; delete them after that.  That way there's some reference or
lookup available, but over time neither does the archive grow unduly
nor do you acquire potentially contentious articles within them.



On 7/5/06, Russ Hunt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It was some years ago, I think, that this was discussed at some
> length on the list -- so it may be worth expanding on this:
>
> > How reliable  would a list's archives be if they could easily
> > be modified?
>
> It _can_ be done, but as soon as a listowner's done it she
> becomes, de facto, the custodian of an archive which is
> infinitely malleable, and has to deal with all the folks who now
> regret having said something intemperate or stupid five years
> ago.
>
> In fact, I would prefer it were it actually impossible, rather
> than merely difficult (and, given the ubiquity of archives,
> etc., in practical terms it is actually pretty much impossible
> to delete something totally).
>
> > The time to edit a  message occurs before it is sent.
>
> Yep.
>
> -- Russ
> St. Thomas University
> http://www.StThomasU.ca/~hunt/
>
>