|
 | | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) [...] (...) No. Whenever the depth of a hierachy on Usenet is extended, the original group is terminated, and a .misc group is created to handle what's not put in other groups. The problem is that some servers don't notice it, when newsgroups (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|  
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| Todd Lehman (lehman@javanet.com) wrote: [...] (...) It might. My main problem is that I think you aren't supposed to have groups placed in other groups, only in "categories". (...) Yes. (...) lugnet.cad.general follows the style from other Lugnet (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) [...] (...) The address list is available to anybody (execept for a few anonymous subscriptions). (...) I had forgotten about that. [...] (...) I think I can manage that. A few messages may have been lost, but I am pretty sure I have most of (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| com> <F5xCnx.H9L@lugnet.com> Distribution: X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] (...) I would not just _gateway_ the list. I would _move_ it. At the same time we could split it in two; one for development questions and one for user questions. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) I would say that my reasons are purely "socio-political". I would like a clear separation of developer and user discussions on the topic of LEGO CAD. Now that I see how people actually use l-cad and lugnet.cad, I think it makes most sense to (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| om> Distribution: X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Todd listed two improvements we could get by moving L-CAD to Lugnet: (...) I look forward to get them. (...) Me too. (...) Yes. Will you put a suggestion together? Here's a start: We suggest that (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Slight change in gateway addressing method
|
| (...) If the sender chooses not to delete the recipient's name before sending the message, and if the recipient receives the group to which the message is posted via e-mail rather than via news, then yes, they'll receive the same reply twice. If (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Slight change in gateway addressing method
|
| (...) Does that mean you the original sender would receive the same reply twice? Personally, I think the l-cad list method is best - you see the sender's names (which is great!) but the Reply-To is set to the newsgroup. That way I don't accidently (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: CFD: robotics sub-groups
|
| (...) As you (may or may not) know, every lugnet.* newsgroup automatically has its own integrated mailing-list gateway. (For example, lugnet.trains@lugnet.com is the mailing list isomorphic to the lugnet.trains newsgroup.) While redundant echoes of (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: CFD: robotics sub-groups
|
| (...) I'd be happy to provide mailing list resouces {and searchable archives} (as opposed to news services) free of charge for the new (if approved) sub-groups. I'm going to be out-of-town next week, but should be in range of e-mail. -abc (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | CFD: robotics sub-groups
|
| Last week, the topic came up about creating a special new group for Robot Arena. (See (URL) for more details and how the thread unfolded.) Assuming this belongs inside the .robotics hierarchy (rather than inside a separate .events hierarchy), a (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| Todd Lehman wrote in message <36a6c04d.53070399@l...et.com>... (...) do (...) I conclude that a lack of an obvious need for something _is_ a reason not to do that something. If I have 10 bucks and someone says "place a bet with me... if you win I (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) I don't think your reasons for believing that there is no need are flawed, After all, from your point of view, as you described, a news gateway wouldn't help you. But if I'm understanding your conclusions, then the flaw, I think, is in (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) Depends on whether there's a parts-vote going on. In the last several days, it would be handy to see things in a thready manner. (...) Again, I went data-diving just last night (I had to dig up the BAT I posted for creating MPD files). (...) (...) (26 years ago, 20-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Informal CFD: robotics competition newsgroup(s)
|
| (...) It gets back to expectations of behavior (both people and machines). As a mail-list subsriber, I'd expect the list to behave one way. As an ng reader, I'd have different expectations. If Chris Atlas had posted to lugnet.anything-else, I doubt (...) (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) I meant relatively hidden with respect to the ng, once you know about the ng's. For example, I just took a browse through the ng looking for URLs and found Jacob's and Laurentino's and Steve's page, among others... Even knowing that the LDraw (...) (26 years ago, 20-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.177)
|
|
| | Re: Informal CFD: robotics competition newsgroup(s)
|
| (...) But: (1) The whole point in the first place of linking ba-lego@cinnamon.com with lugnet.loc.us.ca.sf was to bring those two particular pre-existing groups together. If ba-lego@cinnamon.com was echoed over in a .mailing-echo.* hierarchy, then (...) (26 years ago, 20-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.176)
|
|
| | Re: Posting with MIME encoded FROM header
|
| (...) This was my first reaction as well. It has always been considered bad and ugly to post anything MIME encoded on news. But as you say yourself, this practice is becoming increasingly common, so you are probably going to be be confronted with it (...) (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.176)
|
|
| | Re: Posting with MIME encoded FROM header
|
| (...) Haven't encountered any problems yet (that have been reported, anyway) but I'll bet that if +128 characters aren't ISO-8859-1 encoded on the way out, the problem is going to pop up sooner or later. (...) I guess I'll need to stuff in an (...) (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.176)
|
|
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) More toward the end of the list, I believe. Any readers are welcome to jump in at this point with contradictory opinions. (...) Hmm. TLG watchers? Good or bad? Hmm. (...) I don't know. It's running on the list-server at Doug Finney's alma (...) (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.176)
|
