 | | Re: Come On!
|
|
(...) And just to really confuse everyone, you can set follow-ups to groups you're not posting to (though Lugnet may have some restrictions on combinations I think?). However this is usually considered bat "netiquette". And yes, Outlook Express (...) (23 years ago, 14-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Come On!
|
|
Its not at all confusing. I figure I'd do follow ups to the LUCNY group as its new and its in our area. Cross posted to LUCNY because I mentioned it. :) -- Nicole widow of Kenneth A. Drumm Ph.D. "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.org.us.lucny)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) Well, as in you're not logged in because you are either not a member, you're not accepting cookies, or something else. (...) Oh? So PGP authorization is currently in effect for members who have uploaded their PGP key and post with NNTP/SMTP? (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Come On!
|
|
(...) Ignore this if it is at all confusing... but if you use the web interface that should be OK, you can post to several groups and set FUT to more than one but less than all of them. Not sure about Outlook Express or how it works so that could be (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) but if you're a member, and you're posting via the web, LUGNET already knows who you are... no need for pgp there... unless you mean as a way to post without being logged in? (...) heh, why make users choose? if you're a member, you _can_ (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) Yep. I guess the question I have is, to what extent can they be tied into the various interfaces? For NNTP and email, I'd imagine they're fairly easy. For web, it'd be more difficult I assume. (...) I guess my inclination (in a perfect world) (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) nod - that does make sense. I know Jennifer and I still don't use the web interface, but we're special :) (...) since anyone can become a member, if a malicious user wanted to spoof Suz, for instance, all he had to do is fork out $10... (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) I'm willing to bet that the distribution of posting has shifted toward the Web interface since the authentication has gone into effect. At least among LUGNET *members*. (...) If members are spoofing posts, there's a real problem. I'd think (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickbay subgroup again
|
|
Any progress on a decision about lugnet.market.brickshops? I noticed that recently a few experienced members have advertised their shops in lugnet.market.shopping. The shopping subgroup doesn't specifically exclude this. I have gotten used to the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Come On!
|
|
I figured it out. I had more than one group in the follow up to space. -- Nicole widow of Kenneth A. Drumm Ph.D. "Kenneth A. Drumm Ph.D." <arcanamachi@netzero.net> wrote in message news:GHyoAH.14z@lugnet.com... (...) list (...) 0x800CCCA9 (...) (...) (23 years ago, 12-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Come On!
|
|
Every thing is correct just like you have here. All I do is click on a list of subscribed groups. -- Nicole widow of Kenneth A. Drumm Ph.D. "Dan Boger" <dan@peeron.com> wrote in message news:200108121448.f7...ron.com... (...) exist.', (...) prefix? (...) (23 years ago, 12-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Come On!
|
|
(...) It seems the server claims you were posting to bad groups. I assume you had '.'s in your groups when you posted? and had a 'lugnet.' prefix? 'lugnet.announce, lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us.ny.bin, lugnet.org.us.luncy'... also, notice that the (...) (23 years ago, 12-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Come On!
|
|
Now when trying to post we get this: Outlook Express could not post your message. Subject 'New website', Account: 'lugnet.com', Server: 'lugnet.com', Protocol: NNTP, Server Response: '441 Your message is addressed to a group which does not exist.', (...) (23 years ago, 12-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) I don't like to write "me too" posts, but I think it's worth saying again in this case. I find myself in exactly the same situation as LFB - my rate of posting (and reading, for that matter) has increased since I switched to the web interface (...) (23 years ago, 12-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) You can have a look at some very basic info here: (URL) (23 years ago, 11-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) I'll speak as one of the opposite: The verification thing has actually made my rate of posting go *up*. I now log in, read, and post back at will. Before I was still trying to cling to NNTP, which I don't find as intuitive anymore. I may be in (...) (23 years ago, 11-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) LUGNET is not a democracy but I would vote AGAINST this in every single group I use or view (or whatever the metric was) This has been discussed at great length and I at least am convinced that the small inconvenience is worth not having (...) (23 years ago, 11-Aug-01, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) I know I've slowed down greatly. It's a pain to bang off a quick message now. I've seen several postings of "By all This is the last post I'll be posting but I'll still be reading" type of post. The traffic to the robotics areas seems like (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) is who he says he is. However, there's a development cost to setting this up (trust me, I tried working on a script to do just that!), and PGP will not be a good solution for all (most?) users - users who like posting from multiple machines, (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting varification, ug!
|
|
(...) PGP keys are unrelated to nntp - and they could be used to verify that a user is who he says he is. However, there's a development cost to setting this up (trust me, I tried working on a script to do just that!), and PGP will not be a good (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
