Subject:
|
Arcane technical history of LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:24:47 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
105 times
|
| |
|
|
On 6/11/26 12:45 AM, Todd Lehman wrote:
> You have a very keen eye!
That, or an insistent mind. ;-)
> That is interesting and ironic indeed! The post says the feature "was recently
> added" (past tense), which means that lugnet.announce:37 should have had that
> header inserted. In fact, #36 and #38 (before and after) have it. That is odd
> indeed!
Yeah, this is what I was noticing earlier, that I thought might be a
clue to the problem. (I now think it's a mirage, a nothing-burger.)
"Recently added" turns out to be 9/30/98, two days after launch; see:
lugnet.admin.general:78
What I noticed was that posts going back to the very beginning, 9/28/98,
had the X-Real-Life-Name header included, even though it hadn't been
implemented yet. But I recalled, from having read through the groups,
that the header typically *wasn't* included the first couple of times a
person would post. So I thought maybe this was another symptom of the
glitch, maybe some headers were getting added/changed/mixed up.
I now think that I'm just mis-remembering what I'd read before. I think
that when that header was first implemented, it was also applied
retroactively to existing posts, so anyone who had already been posting
had it appear from day one.
But for people who started posting after the header was implemented, it
did not appear in their first couple of messages, until the server ran
its script, or they were reminded to register with their real names, etc.
A little later, you added the registration process, where users had to
supply their real names and other data in a form before being allowed to
post, so from then on the X-Real-Life-Name header is always present
(well, except for in gatewayed mailing list messages).
It's actually pretty fascinating to follow the decision-making process
of how things came to be, when and why various sub-groups were added,
and so on. It feels similar to the process used to date early LEGO
elements, catalogs, photos and so forth.
--
N. W. Perry
a/k/a "Plastikean"
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Arcane technical history of LUGNET
|
| (...) Both are good! (...) Hmm, ya, unfortunately we didn't keep records on that, but I *think* it only applied forward...but if anything retroactively were applied, I reckon it would have been only in cases where someone had disclosed the (...) (2 weeks ago, 11-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Another missing message (was Re: Posts expiring?)
|
| (...) You have a very keen eye! That is interesting and ironic indeed! The post says the feature "was recently added" (past tense), which means that lugnet.announce:37 should have had that header inserted. In fact, #36 and #38 (before and after) (...) (2 weeks ago, 11-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
