 | | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) More toward the end of the list, I believe. Any readers are welcome to jump in at this point with contradictory opinions. (...) Hmm. TLG watchers? Good or bad? Hmm. (...) I don't know. It's running on the list-server at Doug Finney's alma (...) (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) "exposed" meaning "poisoned" or "corrupted" or "affected" or "known" or "watched" or "commented on" or "muddied up"? :) If it means "known," what about lurking and/or participation from people inside TLG? (...) I think (not positive) it's an (...) (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <36a4be19.12532954@l...et.com>... (...) This is also my general opinion of the group's feeling, but I can only speak for my own, and I think it lies (as mentioned) at the far end of that list. LINC (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) I see. So is it accurate to say that one concern is Joe Random Poster dropping in and posting a doofy comment, opinion, question, or problem...? If so, I would have to agree that a J.R.P. is more likely to subscribe and post doofy things to a (...) (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message <36a4d53e.57295068@l...et.com>... (...) No, it is not accurate to use the word "doofy". I think uniformed or misplaced comments would be a better description. I lurked on the LCAD list for months before asking a (...) (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) Har! Re-reading what I just posted, there are a couple seemingly contradictory statements there... Actually, they're not contradictory -- they're talking about two different types of people. The first one is suggesting that someone who's (...) (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) I meant relatively hidden with respect to the ng, once you know about the ng's. For example, I just took a browse through the ng looking for URLs and found Jacob's and Laurentino's and Steve's page, among others... Even knowing that the LDraw (...) (26 years ago, 20-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote (...) :) (...) and (...) You forgot about turning on your computer and moving the mouse in that list of steps. IMO this is a Straw Man argument. If you have used LDraw or LEdit, you have read the FAQ and it is in the FAQ. It is (...) (26 years ago, 20-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) Depends on whether there's a parts-vote going on. In the last several days, it would be handy to see things in a thready manner. (...) Again, I went data-diving just last night (I had to dig up the BAT I posted for creating MPD files). (...) (...) (26 years ago, 20-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <36a61fe4.6069684@lu...et.com>... (...) I agree! LINC Ps. lets do it after the vote is finished :) (26 years ago, 20-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) I don't think your reasons for believing that there is no need are flawed, After all, from your point of view, as you described, a news gateway wouldn't help you. But if I'm understanding your conclusions, then the flaw, I think, is in (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) I just got a curious message back from the L-CAD list-server tonight... "The distribution of your message dated Thu, 21 Jan 1999 01:35:37 -0600 with subject "Re: number for unknown part" has been postponed because the L-CAD list is held. No (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) For sure! L-CAD is the only place to decide the issue... But thinking through the advantages/gains and disadvantages/risks ahead of time (like we're doing here) prior to bringing it up on L-CAD seems like a good idea to me. It's always good to (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) Right. It looks like they upgraded their system. I don't remember getting such a useful message last fall. (...) I don't know -- I'm guessing it was resolved off-line between Doug and Bill. Steve (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message <36a6c04d.53070399@l...et.com>... (...) do (...) I conclude that a lack of an obvious need for something _is_ a reason not to do that something. If I have 10 bucks and someone says "place a bet with me... if you win I (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) I meant, sometimes non-obvious needs exist even when no obvious needs exist. And sometimes when neither obvious nor non-obvious needs can be identified, something can still be worth doing. Most "needs" that people identify with started out as (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message (...) exist. OK, I see what you mean. (...) obvious (...) easier (...) 1950? (...) I don't dispute that this happens, but if this you subscribe to this argument then you should agree that it can just as easily go the (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) Yup -- works both ways! Trick is to identify as much good & bad up front as reasonably possible. (...) My favorite thing about separate ng's is the mood & time thing -- plow through certain groups quickly, then go back and read other ones as (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) I would say "muddied up". (...) TLG and their software developers know about the list and participate in a constructive way. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: Jacob.Sparre.Andersen@risoe.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- LEGO: (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
om> Distribution: X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Todd listed two improvements we could get by moving L-CAD to Lugnet: (...) I look forward to get them. (...) Me too. (...) Yes. Will you put a suggestion together? Here's a start: We suggest that (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
com> <F5xCnx.H9L@lugnet.com> Distribution: X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] (...) I would not just _gateway_ the list. I would _move_ it. At the same time we could split it in two; one for development questions and one for user questions. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) [...] (...) The address list is available to anybody (execept for a few anonymous subscriptions). (...) I had forgotten about that. [...] (...) I think I can manage that. A few messages may have been lost, but I am pretty sure I have most of (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) Mailing list subscriptions per se can be automagically moved if someone can come up with an address list. It will be best to have the address list in place first before the new newsgroup is created, so that the Terms of Use can be mailed out (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) I agree with the first, not so sure about the second. I'm not enough of an ng purist to require that a cad.developers group requires an equivalent cad.users group. Steve (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) Sure. If you will mail them out (assuming you have an easy & efficient way to paste all of the subscribers' e-mail addresses into a message. Otherwise, let's wait until L-CAD is back online). (...) I don't agree here. To me, "users" implies (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) [...] (...) I have, but we can just as well wait - and work on the suggestion until then. (...) Todd has got me away from the lugnet.cad.users idea. Lets keep the plain lugnet.cad for the general stuff. I don't like to use the name l-cad for (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) Apart from .l-cad being a legacy thing, both CAD and LEGO are there twice in the full expansion of lugnet.cad.l-cad: l u g net . cad . l - cad | | | ||| ||| | ||| LEGO Users Group Network CAD LEGO CAD So maybe it's a little bit redundant. :) (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
(...) How about these real candidates for the lugnet.cad.* hierarchy? lugnet.cad Unchanged, except for possible loss of content to groups below lugnet.cad.dat Unchanged lugnet.cad.dev.parts Parts development and publishing lugnet.cad.dev.apps (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
Steve Bliss (blisses@worldnet.att.net) wrote: [...] (...) Yup! [...] (...) L-CAD will just _change_ it's name to "lugnet.cad.parts" or whatever we can decide on. (...) Terry's work will probably be noticed more, but I don't expect the procedure to (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <36adb6d8.922755@lugnet.com>... (...) I like the lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dat, and lugnet.cad.dev heirarchy best. If we ever got to the point where lugnet.cad was getting a hundred post a day, it might make sense to (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
