 | | Re: Lugnet CSOTW Spam
|
|
Well, then, I'm sorry to have stirred things up. Few things get my dander up faster than phone solicitors and email spam from private parties. (Not much can be done about spam-bots) I'm glad it was a mistake, and not an actual spam effort. ~Mark (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Lugnet CSOTW Spam
|
|
All ~ First of all, the Lugnet CSOTW Spam came from me. Unfortunately, before this evening, I did not know what "spam" was or, for that matter, whose e-mail was in my address book. This was not a "massive spam", I only wanted to send the site (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Todd, could you please resend me my password?
|
|
Todd, my server won't let me send normal mail to you, so I'm sorry I have to ask this way. My system crashed and my settings are all messed up, and some data was lost. Right now I get prompted every time in lugnet replies if I have read the terms of (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet CSOTW Spam
|
|
(...) I got one as well. I did have a transaction with the person a few months ago, though, so I'd guess they just emailed everyone in their address book... Jeff "You spoony bard!" (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet CSOTW Spam
|
|
(...) Well, I second the motion. ~Mark "still really grumpy about it" Sandlin (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet CSOTW Spam
|
|
(...) yah, I got the same exact mail, and also got it on one of the lego club mailing lists I read - with the exact same message id - massive spamming, imo... I think that site should be removed from the nomination. but that's just me :) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Lugnet CSOTW Spam
|
|
I received this message in my email box this morning. (...) I have snipped the sender's email, to protect their privacy. Usually I just forgive the occasional random emails about LEGO that I occasionally receive from people I have bought from (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Length of lines
|
|
(...) 80 is the width of the "standard" screen, but messages should be wrapped somewhat before that. (23 years ago, 5-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Length of lines
|
|
(...) If it was 80, and most screens were 80x24, as soon as the first quote happened it would wrap wrong. :) 72 has been the de-facto standard for as long as I can remember (i think? was it ever mentioned in an RFC?). (23 years ago, 5-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Length of lines
|
|
Heh, guess my reader is set to 76! :) M$ default, I suspect. Build On! John Matthews John Matthews <jmatthew@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:GCu517.1Kv@lugnet.com... (...) ___...___ (...) 12345678901234567890...7890123456 (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Length of lines
|
|
I thought 80 was the number. That was the number when I started using the internet around 6 years ago. Has it been revised? Build On! John Matthews ___...___ ____ 12345678901234567890...7890123456 7890 Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Length of lines
|
|
I use Outlook Express. I just looked and noticed that it is set to wrap messages I send at 76. I don't know whether or not this is the default, but I don't remember changing it. Is 72 preferred? Bryan Beckwith "Fredrik Glöckner" (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Length of lines
|
|
(...) c /avoided/made less severe/ (people who quote many many levels deep will still have trouble, but this is very rare compared to the common 2-3 levels at most) But ya, I agree. Wrap at 72 if possible. (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Length of lines
|
|
I see a lot of posts with long lines. Typically around 75-80. The problem with these is that when people quote them, they become even longer, and eventually they are broken by some clients. A common rule on USENET is to keep the line length below 72 (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet nominated for a webby award!
|
|
(...) Yes, the entire community should be proud. The recognition is yours. (I'm still hoping to get a proper 'congratulations to all' on the homepage.) (...) I think it's a fine idea. It's one Todd and I have discussed before. There are many issues (...) (23 years ago, 28-Apr-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lugnet nominated for a webby award!
|
|
First of all, I want to say that as a member of the LUGNET community, I feel honored that the site has been nominated. It is nice to see something so many people put their time into, receiving the recognition it deserves. While some of you are (...) (23 years ago, 28-Apr-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: OT: some fun
|
|
Do we really need this? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 27-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Help! Lost coookie!
|
|
Help! I lost my cookie for the member log in till i log ot manually and I lost the password with it! Someone help me! Member 586! Rick (23 years ago, 25-Apr-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: CLSotW Correction Requested
|
|
(...) I see the link has been fixed. THANK YOU! G. P.S. Hope I wasn't too much of pest (just pest enough). (23 years ago, 25-Apr-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | CLSotW Correction Requested
|
|
My LEGO related web site, The Animated Brick Company Showcase, has been on the CLSotW nominees list for several weeks now with the wrong url address. I noticed today that CLSotW has been updated but that my address is still wrong. Is it possible to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
