Subject:
|
Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:19:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1663 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:10:03 GMT, mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller)
wrote:
> Jasper Janssen <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote:
> > Sure it's doable. It's not necessarily cxompatible with the RFCs, but
> > it is doable.
>
> It's probably _not_ against the RFCs. It's not an NNTP protocol level thing,
> and this is a private server, not Usenet, so there really isn't anything
> that applies. Todd tries to stick to the Usenet conventions, but "strays" in
> a lot of areas. (Authentication, for example.)
Oh, absolutely. I'm not saying Todd should necessarily stick to the
intent and letter of the RFCs always, I just think it's a good idea to
do so. Helps prevent incompatibilities.
> That's easy enough -- make the rule not work on top-level groups. Or, to be
> more general, make it not work on non-existant groups, and don't create
> group "lugnet".
Good idea.
Actually, I also think it may be a good idea to make this work just
for reading and following up, rather than for posting necessarily.
How's this: When an article gets posted to lugnet.admin.general, it
automatically gets X-posted to lugnet.admin, the umbrella group. Note
that lugnet.admin, or any other umbrella groups, are not necessarily
places for discussion, but merely ways of viewing the discussion in
their subgroups. When following-up, you will get x-posts between lag
and la. When posting a new article to an umbrella group, unless there
is an x-post to non-umbrella group specified, the server rejects the
post. Simplicity itself, nah? :)
> I'm not convinced that this is a good idea either. BUT: if it's going to be
> done to the web interface, it should certainly be done for straight NNTP
> too. Otherwise, the two views of LUGnet will be really different, leading to
> all sorts of badness.
I tend to agree with you on both counts.
> Also, I like it because it allows the concept of splitting things to be
> taken really far without balkanizing discussion.
Yes, exactly.
So we can have
lugnet.themes.town.minifigs.postmen
lugnet.themes.town.minifigs.bakers
lugnet.themes.town.minifigs.telecoms-engineers
lugnet.themes.town.minifigs.ISP-geeks
, and while each of the subgroups may not be great for discussion by
itself, and most people would be subscribed to .minifgs or .town, you
do get all posts neatly sorted into very fine-threaded categories.
This one is very much an example, BTW, in case you hadn't guessed ;) .
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group?
|
| (...) Yeah, that's a good idea and would do a lot for making the system work. You'd probably want to have a lot of ".general" groups.... (...) [snip] (...) Hey, y'know, I wasn't serious when the idea was first proposed. But now I kinda like it. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group?
|
| (...) It's probably _not_ against the RFCs. It's not an NNTP protocol level thing, and this is a private server, not Usenet, so there really isn't anything that applies. Todd tries to stick to the Usenet conventions, but "strays" in a lot of areas. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
44 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
|
|
|
|
