 | | Re: Screwy email for Server
|
|
(...) that can't be right? if you look at the message the server bounced at you, it has an html copy of the message, etc - seems like it was an email sent to the mailing list? or am I misunderstanding here? Dan (24 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
(...) I think it was a fine design. I was simply offering an opinion from a different point of view. I took from her original post that she was showing the mock-up in case anyone wanted to offer an opinion. I'm not sure she was actively soliciting (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
Well, I don't want to come off as overly combative on this issue but I think Suz's design was fine and absolutely heading in the right direction. Keep in mind that the screen shot she posted first was a screen shot of her whole screen (the browser, (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Screwy email for Server
|
|
(...) But I did post via the web. Jude (24 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Screwy email for Server
|
|
(...) yah, proper "vacation" programs should know not to respond to "bulk" mail. Unfortunately, some of the more common implementations are not so smart. (...) that is because that mail server (I think it's exchange?) does not reply to mail (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Screwy email for Server
|
|
I posted this message to robotics (URL) got two out of office replies. This I understand why but I wish people would put an exception for subscriptions. grrrrr But why did I get the message below from the Lugnet Server? Jude Message: From: LUGNET (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
(...) Ooops, sorry...... didn't mean to give that impression. There's nothing wrong with good design; quite the contrary. I was simply trying to suggest that the design I saw there appeared somewhat too business-like. Perhaps I can clarify with (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
(...) How can someone take such a statement the wrong way? As far as I can tell, you are advocating BAD DESIGN as something that will somehow benefit new users -- in which case, I have to strongly disagree. Good design choices are to everyone's (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
(...) This looks really interesting. Is this intended to be a print mag? Or an e-zine? Either way, it looks very exciting. (...) It looks so very corporate. The design is almost too snazy. The clean lines, the co-ordinated colors. All very high (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: a few new things
|
|
(...) programming and UI design effort, perhaps with the Market section? (...) A thought: This seems to me to have a lot in common with the Market idea. (...) newsgroups there. However I wouldn't recommend redesigning the whole thing, just add a (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
