|
 | | Re: News-by-Mail digests
|
| (...) Do you also usually take the trouble to append the article's 'Message-ID' header to its 'References' or 'In-Reply-To' headers (if available) and paste the result into the 'References' header of your new message in order to preserve the (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|  
mail
(score: 1.228)
|
|
| | 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: 1.228)
|
|
| | Re: News-by-Mail digests
|
| [whoops, this time the Followup-To field is actually set to lugnet.admin.general; I forgot to do that last time.] (...) OK. People receiving duplicates won't disrupt the ng's any, so if duplicate messages aren't annoying to you, then they're not a (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 1.228)
|
|
| | 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: 1.228)
|
|
| | RE: Taking LUGNET to the next level
|
| <snip> (...) <snip> Todd, Let me be on of the first people on the bandwagon of congratulations on the work you and Suzanne have done over the past 5 or 6 years. Even if I never did get my membership package :-) I will continue to view Lugnet as the (...) (21 years ago, 20-Feb-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
service
(score: 1.228)
|
|
| | Re: Posting with MIME encoded FROM header
|
| (...) Hmm, I don't know. At first I want to say no it shouldn't -- because it's totally unreadable with that encoding. But OTOH, maybe yes it should, because maybe modern newsreaders are smart enough to decode that into 8-bit ISO characters on the (...) (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 1.228)
|
|
| | 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: 1.228)
|
|
| |
|
mail
(score: 1.228)
|
|
| | Re: Informal CFD: robotics competition newsgroup(s)
|
| (...) I could go either way. I suppose that a lugnet.comp.* hierarchy could expand someday, to cover various software packages and online stuff. No, wait. I changed my mind. How much potential is there for *computer-centered* discussion on lugnet? (...) (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 1.228)
|
|
| | 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: 1.228)
|
|
| | 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: 1.228)
|
|
| | 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: 1.228)
|
|
| | 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: 1.228)
|
|
| | Re: News-by-Mail digests
|
| (...) Mainly that I all of a sudden got flooded with ANOTHER pile of Emails when this was started up. I don't mind the CONTENT, but I prefer it in Digest form. I get anything I can in Digest form, unless it is something that I NEED realtime. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
mail
(score: 1.228)
|
|
| | Re: News-by-Mail digests
|
| (...) I'd much prefer them on a per-group basis, even if it means some duplicates across several Digests. (...) I know of no client at all that can handle Digests in the way you want. It is up to the Digest owner to modify the Digest output to do (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 1.228)
|
|
| | 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: 1.228)
|
|
| | 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: 1.228)
|
|
| | Re: News-by-Mail digests
|
| (...) That sounds like a reasonably good idea. I think most digest-ers are more read-oriented than write-oriented, so making it slightly harder to reply shouldn't be that big of a deal. I think. Steve (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 1.228)
|
|
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) Good, but I would prefer a slightly higher treshold to enter the LEGO CAD developer discussions. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: Jacob.Sparre.Andersen@risoe.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- LEGO: MOC+++c TO+++(6543) TC+++(8880) (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 1.228)
|
|
| | Re: News-by-Mail digests
|
| (...) This is me. If I do wanna reply to a specific msg, I usually take the trouble to put in the right email and subject in, so I wouldnt care one bit, just as long as there is some sorta digest. Per group digest would be better compared to (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 1.228)
|
