 | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group? —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | (...) 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. (...) Good idea. Actually, I also think it may be a good idea to (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Hmmm, seems pretty messy to me, especially for deep hierarchies where there are many nested umbrealla groups. In that scenario, aren't you saying that if someone posted to lugnet.loc.us.ma.bos, the message would actually have to be crossposted (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) Well, not the last one for sure. And probably not "lugnet.loc", either. (Groups which don't exist don't get crossposted to; seem reasonable. This lets you not make those groups which don't make sense. You've done this already, right?) And the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) And it would automatically go out to all the webpages on the net and fix up the links where people say things like "discuss this on LUGNET" and give a link to the article they posted? And it would automatically go back through all the news (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) Ah. Always a problem in the shifting sea of the web. Sites rearrange and break links all the time. But in this case, there's something else at work: The problem is that people are linking to the wrong thing. Article numbers are arbitrary and (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) But in order to link by message ID, you have to either serve the message by url-encoded message ID (because people will always just cut & paste the URL) instead of by group & number, or give people some way to click a "bookmark or link to (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Message-ID lengths (was: Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Whoops, I forgot to hold off on posting that until my script finished. Those two numbers were just placeholders from memory. OK, the script finished running, and the average Message-ID length is 29.8346 characters, and the smallest of the set (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Message-ID lengths (was: Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group?) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Heh. Ok, so it might be reasonable to have something that does a mapping, for the sake of the poor humans. :) (...) Probably not. Just one that happened to intrigue me. And now, it's All Figured Out in case you want to implement it in the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Message-ID lengths (was: Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm glad you brought it up, actually, because you pointed out a few things I hadn't considered (such as the fact that splitting a group wouldn't necessarily mean zeroing it out). I racked my brain pretty hard back in May-June last year, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) Possibly. But it does introduce other issues, such as the moving-stuff-around one. And I can think of various possible past and future reasons why you might want to do that. But actually, upon further reflection, does this really matter? I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group? —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) I'd leave off the lugnet, but yeah, that's the idea. I'm still not entirely convinced it wouldbe a good thing, though. (...) Hmm. Which would mean that you would have to create every single group as a .general. Bad. (...) I'd like it. Does (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) I looked around a bit in the newsserver code last night and I was thinking of setting up a virtual newsgroup called _lugnet as a test case, and just filling it manually with some stuff, and seeing what happened with a few newsreaders. Before I (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) "_" being a prefix for umbrella groups? Or is that just for testing? I still think I like the .general idea. It seems clean and logical to me. (I mean, why do we have lugnet.general instead of just posting into lugnet?) I don't think that (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group? —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) Because of the "other parts of the system", is the prefix thing a necessary/near necessary step? (...) I don't think it should work like that. Less incentive to micro-classify threads. Jasper (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
