 | | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) nod, interesting... or send a reminder, saying "if you don't authorize this post in the next 2 days, it will be deleted"... (...) it can, but should it? I think the date the message was written is the date that should appear on it. the (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) I view the dates differently. In the authentication scenario, the authorize date is the date when the poster made a conscious decision to share their message with the community, the message's birthday. The date they wrote and submitted the (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) I'd much rather have unauthorized posts expire after a week or so, perhaps with a reminder a couple of days before they do. That's the way I'm leaning twards right now - not saying that it'll be implemented anytime soon, of course :) Dan (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting Dates
|
|
(...) There's actually two problems which cause funny dated/timed messages. The one Lugnet has had from day 1 is that the poster's clock is incorrectly set. This usually results in messages having time stamps which are off by several hours, but if (...) (22 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
