 | | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) true that that's only for the web interface. However, I don't know the distribution of users between web/nntp/smtp. Do you have any data? (...) Authenticated posting only makes sure you're allowde to access the server - it does not (without (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) Really? I had kind of assumed that the web interface was the primary interface used... Although my guess is that that's changed since LUGNET's inception when it was most likely primarily NNTP... I dunno... (...) I think the point was mentioned (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) That's only if you are using the WEB interface. I think most of us use the NNTP or Email interface. My NEWS reader supports Authenticated posting, can we use that to prove who we are and not have to verify each post? We are loosing a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) Firstly, let me move this to where it belongs... lugnet.admin.general Secondly, if you are a member of LUGNET, you can sign in and you do not have to wait to verify posts. Jude FUT .admin.general (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: strange error
|
|
(...) That's what the lugnet.off-topic.test and lugnet.off-topic.test.foo are for :) post a message to one, with a followup set for the other :) HTH, Dan (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: strange error
|
|
Thank you Selcuk. Think there would be a problem with me testing it first? -- Nicole widow of Kenneth A. Drumm Ph.D. "Selçuk Göre" <ssgore@superonline.com> wrote in message news:3B7384AA.22C97C...ine.com... (...) group', (...) 0x800CCCA9 (...) (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: strange error
|
|
Nicole, In Outlook Express message window (where you type your new message or reply to a message) click on the menu "View", then click on "All headers". Then you will see a new address line entry, which labeled as "Followup-To". I hope this would (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: strange error
|
|
It just gives me a list of groups to post to. -- Nicole widow of Kenneth A. Drumm Ph.D. "LUGNET Admin" <suz@lugnet.com> wrote in message news:GHtrGt.GA0@lugnet.com... (...) addressed to (...) few (...) would say (...) area. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: strange error
|
|
(...) If you would like to post an announcement, your message needs to be addressed to lugnet.announce with instructions to reply to, or 'follow up,' at another newsgroup, such as lugnet.build. This is so the announce area contains only (...) (23 years ago, 9-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | strange error
|
|
when posting we get this: Outlook Express could not post your message. Subject 'New website', Account: 'lugnet.com', Server: 'lugnet.com', Protocol: NNTP, Server Response: '441 Posts to lugnet.announce must follow-up to another group', Port: 119, (...) (23 years ago, 9-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
(...) It's this latter example (like Frank's) that I had in mind. Someone at LUGNET would only need make the initial contact, and the rest is up to the person's "supervisor". Since I would assume cases like this to be exceptionally rare, I would (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: It is time to ban JAL.
|
|
(...) I never was fond of JAL i the first place. People try to be nice to him but he just twists there words against them and tries to make them look like the jerk and glorify himself. His constant ramblings about all of his great MOCs are very (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Pocket PC viewing
|
|
Todd, I recently acquired one of the Compaq iPAQ Pocket PCs, and am experiencing difficulty in caching successfully the main Lugnet and News sites. Your site appears in my Mobile Favorites, unfortunately it is grayed out and clicking the link only (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
(...) As I mentioned to Shiri, I hadn't thought at all of a case like this where medication could help "control" the behaviour. I was thinking of cases where there is no such possible aid. But in spite of that, I think your example fits exactly what (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
(...) Understood. I don't feel comfortable with it either. (...) Yeah, I know what you mean..., I can't seem to wordify it either. There is a difference. I guess I could have better described 2 ("the kid") as someone who (may or) may not be doing (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
(...) Chicken 8?P (Like I'm not doing the same thing? I'll try to form one now, here...) (...) I know...I was just making extreme, general (and well known) cases... Think about this...my 2 year old daughter can PLAY with the computer, but she'll (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
(...) I've been thinking about this. My jury is still out on this one..., in other words I'm wimping out on forming an opinion ;] In general I believe everybody should get the same treatment. However sometimes, specifically if it will help the (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
(...) You bring up a very interesting question. Online situations unfortunately have an serious handicap in human relations in that you don't get any visual or verbal clues. In another online forum, which is an adjunct to a face-to-face forum, I am (...) (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
I'll reply to this, but really without considering Jesse at *all*. I agree that this should be an issue, on some level... (...) You could say so, yes... (...) Right. I think one of the three applies to every single case I can think of (which aren't (...) (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kyle D. Jackson writes: <snipped for brevity, not for quality> (...) <more snippage, but still good stuff...go read it> (...) Kyle, You bring up some good, thought-provoking points here. I can tell you really have been (...) (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
