|
 | | Re: Posting Dates
|
| (...) ?? Wouldn't it show up in their mail on the day it actually got posted rather than the day it was sent, queued up and was intended to be posted? A mail interface person who didn't closely check the date on the mail, or a newsreader person (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|  
mail
(score: 0.326)
|
|
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.326)
|
|
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
| (...) Oops...ought to clarify for readers that this is a web interface problem. Obviously those having the messages delivered via newsgroup or e-mail would not see this as a new message...it would just show up by date where it belongs in their (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.325)
|
|
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.325)
|
|
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
| (...) It would help if the server could "nag" people if their auth response was never received. An e-mail reminder could help in case the original auth request was deleted or never delivered. I've always wondered ever since the auth system was put (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.325)
|
|
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
| (...) Maybe that's the penalty you mention below? Someone who doesn't authorize a message right away runs the risk of having their message being not read as it gets inserted in it's proper place in line-perhaps after a week or so? Is that even (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.325)
|
|
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
| (...) I like this suggestion. If the message isn't dispositioned within 5 days (I like 3 better) send the entire text of the message back to the sender via e-mail and remove it from the server. The message could easily be reposted via newsreader if (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.325)
|
|
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.325)
|
|
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.324)
|
|
| |
|
service
(score: 0.324)
|
|
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.324)
|
|
| | ? ... (Shooting the messenger)
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I did what I could to make a bad situation better. I didn't know what else to do but knew that resolution was needed. I just wanted to find help, and didn't know how else to do it. Seemed like the best "common sense" at that (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.324)
|
|
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.324)
|
|
| | E-mails due to Lugnet inventories
|
| In the past 24 hours I have received three e-mails from a Michael Chiaravalloti (theoliver50@hotmail.com) requesting that I send him, free of charge, several pieces from sets I have inventoried and posted to lugnet.db.inv. I am not entirely sure how (...) (23 years ago, 18-Feb-02, to lugnet.db.inv, lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.324)
|
|
| |
|
service
(score: 0.324)
|
|
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.323)
|
|
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.323)
|
|
| | Re: Possible crawler-bot alert?
|
| (...) that is correct - since you didn't change your "from" field to use the spamblock. What you need to do is create a new "posting setup" here: (URL) put in your spamblock email address in the "From" area. Then, change your mail client to send (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.323)
|
|
| | Re: Possible crawler-bot alert?
|
| ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Boger" <dan@peeron.com> (...) is (...) change (...) post, (...) Oh, I see. I have actually changed my posting setup to include the block, but cannot send e-mail out using the block, as my mail server will not (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
mail
(score: 0.323)
|
|
| |
|
service
(score: 0.323)
|
