Subject:
|
Re: Posting Dates
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:51:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2027 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Boger writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Gerber wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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...
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 doable?
(I'm not saying that is the problem in this instance...we won't know if
Scott authorized this message a month late until he gets back on line...I'm
working on the assumption that this is a problem with the server or software
itself, even if that is erroneous)
> > 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.
>
> naw - it's not the server's fault that whoever it is sat on the
> authuntication for a month... The only way we could fix that on the
> server side is to expire articles... say, if you don't auth it within a
> week, it's thrown away. Is that a better solution? I'm not sure. it sure
> will save space on the server though.
I think it's an OK solution to keep the immediacy of posts flowing...as a
storage system for future use, it kinda' stinks, but if someone missed
authorizing a message for over a week, they're not really a part of the
"conversation" anymore anyway (IMO)...there might be an option or wording in
the authorization e-mail about checking the date of the message, or changing
the message if it is beyond a certain "expiration" date. ("This message is
best if read by March 1, 2002" 8?) )
Can the server check the date submitted for authorization versus the date
authorized and if it finds a discrepancy of a week or more, send out a
confirmation mail (I know, I know...ANOTHER mail) to make absolutely sure
that the poster wants to still post THAT particular message?
> > This is a very rare occurance, but it is a known problem. Is there a
> > solution?
>
> return the auth message when you get it, or post via the web, and avoid
> the auth problem.
>
> Can you think of a better way of "fixing" this?
Since I don't know the actual inner workings of the software or the sever, I
think that the options we are touching on above might be viable...it would
really be up to you though, to decide if you CAN, or even WANT TO, put the
work into finding a fix on your end.
Matt
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
