 | | Re: Mailing list gateways —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | (...) I would say that my reasons are purely "socio-political". I would like a clear separation of developer and user discussions on the topic of LEGO CAD. Now that I see how people actually use l-cad and lugnet.cad, I think it makes most sense to (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Mailing list gateways —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Assuming this happens, the safest way is probably to re-inject all of the articles into the new ng, rather than actually renaming it. Then after that, the old group can be blown away. The process of re-injecting, however, is tricky with (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Mailing list gateways —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | Todd Lehman (lehman@javanet.com) wrote: [...] (...) It might. My main problem is that I think you aren't supposed to have groups placed in other groups, only in "categories". (...) Yes. (...) lugnet.cad.general follows the style from other Lugnet (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Mailing list gateways —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) I've heard that too. :) I don't think it's a Good-Thing/Bad-Thing thing. Note that sub-groups of real groups are a way of life in the lugnet.loc.* hierarchies -- and it's an important property of their usage. But sub-groups of real groups also (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Mailing list gateways —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | (...) [...] (...) No. Whenever the depth of a hierachy on Usenet is extended, the original group is terminated, and a .misc group is created to handle what's not put in other groups. The problem is that some servers don't notice it, when newsgroups (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Mailing list gateways —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Even if that were true (which it isn't; you can find zillions of examples where there is a.b.c & a.b.c.d and no a.b.c.misc), isn't it silly to require that a new group a.b.c.misc be created to replace a perfectly working group a.b.c? Anyway, (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Mailing list gateways —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | Todd Lehman (lehman@javanet.com) wrote: [...] (...) Yeees, I get the point. I was wrong. <grumph> ;-( [...] (...) nn, I think - a rather new version (showed up on one of the university machines approximately half a year ago). Play well, Jacob (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Mailing list gateways —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) i know of one counter-example: Rec.arts.sf.written and rec.arts.sf.written....ert-jordan There is no .misc, and rasfw is a very valid and existing newsgroup. then again, I'm not an experienced newsreader, so there's probably others floating (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
