Subject:
|
Re: Posting Dates
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:59:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1696 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Boger writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Rob Doucette wrote:
> > I thought this NNTP date posted/approved thing was corrected.
>
> I don't see it as broken. The date of a message is the date it was
> composed. The date it was posted is unimportant, imo.
That would only be true if the message somehow just showed up where it
belonged in line. If it posts as a new message 28 days later, it is highly
confusing. This instance has proven that. Besides, it is a disservice to the
users to have their messages lag a month behind the intended date...think of
it as a customer service issue.
This is a very rare occurance, but it is a known problem. Is there a solution?
Matt
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Posting Dates
|
| (...) so you think if it inserted itself with all the read messages, it'd be less confusing? I know I'd never see it, now will anyone who reads through the web interface... (...) naw - it's not the server's fault that whoever it is sat on the (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
| (...) I don't see it as broken. The date of a message is the date it was composed. The date it was posted is unimportant, imo. :) Dan (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
83 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
