 | | Re: Ideas ready to be shot down
|
|
(...) Oh, I dunno... I think the idea has merit. How about if users vote on how much posters have to pay? Then the posters that most users find most annoying won't get to annoy us so much unless they have very deep pockets. Heck, if this went far (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.finance)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas ready to be shot down
|
|
(...) Larry, The thread you posted in was created by me to help the LUGNET community in a small way. Until your post I was very happy with the way it had grown. I count that you have now attacked me personally three times in three days on LUGNET. (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.finance)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas ready to be shot down
|
|
(...) I agree. I set these points up really just to try to feed the thinking of others. That is why I have not defended them in anyway. That said, I'm happy for Chris (or others) to pop away at them as they wish. I'm also happy for others to take (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.finance)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas ready to be shot down
|
|
I'm breaking my resolution here for good reason, I think. (...) We differ there only in the impact of one post, it's a good thread. I seriously posted my suggestion in the spirit of the thread, as a thought starter. I doubt it would be implemented (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.finance)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas ready to be shot down
|
|
(...) or lugnet.bit-bucket???? (URL) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.finance)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas ready to be shot down
|
|
(...) Why not just allow FUT the posters own e-mail address? Scott A (23 years ago, 8-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.finance)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas ready to be shot down
|
|
Make that 4 attacks in three days... and I've probably read only a tiny proportion of your posts. Have you really nothing better to do? I’m certainly not going to waste time correcting the erroneous statements you make below. Scott A =+= Have you (...) (23 years ago, 8-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.finance)
|
| |
| | Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) Maybe allow member.nnn in the posting / follow-up fields? Or even just a "to mail" checkbox for each? ROSCO (23 years ago, 8-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) The standard NNTP behavior is to set "Followup-To: poster" in the header. I'm doing that on this message, let's see if it works. --Bill. (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) Looks like it works just fine (I overrode the followup-to rule in order to post this message). If you try to reply to the above message in NNTP it sends e-mail. Does it do the same for web and SMTP users? If so, we've got our answer - put it (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) Strongly disagree. As I said offline (and that's annoying in and of itself, having to say things twice because of an not easily overrideable FUT), this breaks threading. Since from the web there is no easy way to override the FUT without (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) I agree completely. But that's not the issue that started all this. The request was, as the subject says, to "allow posting & FUT to member email". This issue is solved by the use of "Followup-To: poster". However, a *new* issue has arisen as (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) Well arguably it's not solved. No more or less than the problem of 2 termites in your house would be solved by blowing the entire house up, anyway. (it's late, forgive my poor analogy, but the idea is that the fix isn't a fix if it's worse (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) The original question has been addressed: you can allow posting & FUT to member email. The fact that a bug in the LUGNET web interface has been brought to light doesn't change that. It's a new issue. --Bill. (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) Yes, but it forces me to use NNTP if I want to override your FUT. That's not acceptable for a user with no NNTP available. ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow web users to override "FUT: poster"
|
|
(...) So lets solve it. Can the web interface be changed to bring up the web reply screen when replying to posts with FUT set to "poster"[1]? ROSCO [1] What happens if you set FUT to (eg) lugnet.admin.suggest...ns,poster? I've tried it here to see. (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow web users to override "FUT: poster"
|
|
(...) Puts "lugnet.admin.sugges...ns,poster" in the "newsgroups" field, but won't allow the post. So maybe it needs to accept "poster" in the "newsgroups" field as well. (Incidentally, this means your statement above is only half right, Bill - I can (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) What is it with Seppo's, the english language, and vowels...sometimes they drop them, and in other cases they pop up where you least expect them [it's Whytcross, not Whytecross !] Anyway...the e-mail program was: 1) not mine, but one run by (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) maybe I'm missing something, but show me again where the web interface is broken? I've never had a problem overriding it - but maybe I'm not getting the problem here? Dan (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) oh, nevermind, I see it. I guess we need to add another button in case the fut is poster, so that you'd have the option to reply-to poster, or via the web interface, override the entry. also the newsgroups field in the web interface should (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) Sorry about that incorrect spelling but not particularly remorseful since you've used that nasty nickname again. As for the rest, have it your own way. Everyone's entitled to their own fantasyland. (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | noise (was: Ideas ready to be shot down)
|
|
(...) Scott: This kind of thing belongs offline. To all: Please don't clutter up newsgroups with bickering. It wastes my, and many other people's, time. -Suz Suzanne Rich LUGNET Admin (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.finance, lugnet.announce)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) I would suggest keeping the screen the same, but if the user clicks "Reply" it would take you to a new page that explains "The author of this message has set Followup-To: to 'poster', indicating that he or she wishes any replies to be sent via (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) As an NNTP user, I'd say that poster should be allowed, since it seems to an NNTP-way of doing things. Steve (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) I wasn't suggesting we disallow "poster" FUTs, just combinations "newsgroup, poster" FUTs - are there any NNTP clients that support that kind of thing? actually let you reply to the group and the email? Dan (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) The problem with allowing FUT:poster (as pointed out before) is that web posters get no chance to override it when they reply. You could get around this by allowing "poster" in the "newsgroups" field too (probably only without any other NGs), (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: noise (was: Ideas ready to be shot down)
|
|
(...) ...which was *precisely* my point. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 10-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Allow posting & FUT to member email
|
|
(...) Oh, ok. Sorry I didn't read carefully enough. (...) Forté Agent does -- when I went to reply to Ross' early message, I got a popup window, giving me the options of replying to the post by email, posting a reply to the newsgroup, or both. (...) (23 years ago, 10-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
