 | | Re: group suggestion —Steve Bliss
| | | | I didn't say you had suggested it, I said people would *think* it. Anyway, as I had pointed out, Todd's blocked most binaries, so mis-guided individuals could *try* to post as many scans as they like. It wouldn't work. Steve (...) (26 years ago, 5-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: group suggestion —Kevin Loch
| | | | | | I noticed. I tried to post a graph of the utilization data he posted. KL (...) (26 years ago, 5-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: group suggestion —Todd Lehman
| | | | | (...) Steve/Kevin, I'd forgotten all about this! (The messages above are from 11 months ago, and in the meantime, Kevin has been using the .publish group as the next best thing.) Since the ng hierarchy has stablized much more now since last October (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: group suggestion —Kevin Loch
| | | | | .announce.brickshelf makes sense since the updates are essentially broadcasts and not really interactive. I was going to suggest publish.scans instead of db.scans, but publish.scans implies discussions about any type of scans while db.scans implies (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: group suggestion —Todd Lehman
| | | | | (...) Actually, .publish isn't supposed to be for talking about MOC's at all -- it's for talking about publishing per se: Photography techniques, imaging systems, WWW authoring tools, Internet service providers, legal issues, etc. Long ago, there (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | |
