# Increase the # of U2U's a person can have



## crhoades (Aug 29, 2006)

I've been hovering at the 250 limit for a long time now. There are a lot that I do not want to delete and there is no way to archive. Can't we just set the limit to 500? Wouldn't take up bandwidth from what I could tell.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 29, 2006)

Do you have a bunch of U2Us in your "Trash" ? I believe those count, even after "deletion" until the trash is emptied.


----------



## crhoades (Aug 29, 2006)

Nope. I'm over 250 just in my inbox/outbox. So I'm a pack rat...Just don't want to lose some of the endearing correspondance that I've saved over the last couple of years.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Do you have a bunch of U2Us in your "Trash" ? I believe those count, even after "deletion" until the trash is emptied.



Trash U2U's do indeed count against your total until the trash is emptied. 

But it does not take many U2U's to get close to the limit. I have been here less than a year and have to go looking for messages to delete to stay under the limit and I probably do not use the feature as much as do some others. I imagine bandwith is a consideration here with the limit.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I've been hovering at the 250 limit for a long time now. There are a lot that I do not want to delete and there is no way to archive. Can't we just set the limit to 500? Wouldn't take up bandwidth from what I could tell.



I'm with you, I have a number I don't want to delete either but could probably delete a lot if I really looked. One suggestion is using the U2U for chat, basically, and emailing weightier messages that we don't want to lose. Worst case scenario, couldn't some of them be cut and pasted to a file or something? 

Probably part of the consideration is that if it is set to 500, next year we'll want 1000 and on and on. Wouldn't that eventually impact bandwith?


----------



## crhoades (Aug 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Probably part of the consideration is that if it is set to 500, next year we'll want 1000 and on and on. Wouldn't that eventually impact bandwith?



And your point is...? So I guess what you're saying is I should've asked for a 1000 up front huh? As far as bandwidth and storage is concerned, the pics we post as well as the dancing bananas - not even mentioning the non-judicious quoting large blocks of text far outstrips the bandwidth that most u2u's would take up. Most u2u's are rather short in nature anyway.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 29, 2006)

Can a feature be added to forward more than one message at a time to an email account or to have U2Us copied to an email account. That would make it mostly unnecessary to keep U2Us if that feature were added would it not.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I've been hovering at the 250 limit for a long time now. There are a lot that I do not want to delete and there is no way to archive. Can't we just set the limit to 500? Wouldn't take up bandwidth from what I could tell.


 Sheesh... Chris just clean up your U2U box for crying out loud. Why in the world would someone need to save 250+ U2Us?


----------



## crhoades (Aug 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



230 of them are from you!


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...




 And probably 200 of mine! 

[Edited on 8-29-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 29, 2006)

Well, I'm not complaining about the imposed limitations.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 29, 2006)

One feature that would be nice to get the software people to add for the board is one familiar to web-based e-mail, where the user could toggle a box at the type and highlight all U2Us in his box for deletion. Afterwards, if one wanted to leave something, you simply go back and untoggle the individual boxes.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 29, 2006)

Can you say 'clutter' or 'pack rat'?


----------



## Ivan (Aug 29, 2006)

You can't use your email addresses?


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 29, 2006)

Pffffftt... I barely have over 100 in my box. You guys are just too lazy at maintenace and then get bogged down. The limitations force you to do some needed pruning.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Pffffftt... I barely have over 100 in my box. You guys are just too lazy at maintenace and then get bogged down. The limitations force you to do some needed pruning.



Ryan, I am shocked and saddened that you have so callously trashed our profound and erudite correspondence.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...


 Nothing personal Chris, but few things you have ever U2Ued me are that profound and erudite.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



I hope you know that was a joke.  Well, when it comes to pruning time, I know where to start. :bigsmile:


----------



## crhoades (Aug 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



And wouldn't you know that after _all_ this, Ryan u2u's me! I want to respond, but now I'll be forced to prune...


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 29, 2006)

I knew you were joking.


----------



## crhoades (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



Just noticed the u2u limit was upped to 300! Do I hear 500?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 2, 2006)

Had this discussion with Chris Coldwell. My recommendation is that you utilize the "Forward to my e-mail" feature if you want to archive messages - it would be easier to store, categorize and archive for the long run anyhow. I'm not averse to bumping it up but this is probably a better way.


----------

