>Not so much to you Ed, but just a good place to put this message.
>
>>Hey, I'm very happy with the changes
>
>Ok, I believe I've been too hard on the UT staff, Sorry Michel and Co.
>
>They are doing a good job, and I realize that in my "requests" I haven't been fair. Once again, sorry for the out bursts, Mike.

No need to apologize, Mike. I've asked for plenty of things that haven't made it into UT - if you remember, I was one of the original people who asked for the ability to receive UT's content and post replies as an XML stream (at least for PUTMs, which I think is a reasonable restriction) with an eye to doing my own OLR. If Iset the order of implementation, I'd have put that at the top of the list, since doing it would let the PUTM implement their own feature set - offer a simple, standard app that offered some basic capability, and let the recipient implement whatever features for UI, filtration, data retention, etc themselves; publish a schema and let the receiver futz around as much as they want on their end. Doing that, PUTMs have the option to "have it your way" (I want bacon, lettuce and VBScript, hold the spam!) without forcing Michel to alterthe current web-based UI. If the OLR environment from CIS was any indication, there will be plenty of people collaborating creating OLRs, and in addition to Open Source exchanges, there may be a market for shareware/retail offerings.

IOW, I know we don't have everything, and we might want our things first, but we are getting more of what we want. Slowly. I understand that you can get better service, or at least a better table, if you slip the head waiter a $20...