 | | Re: New Group Proposal - LUGNET.LEGO.QA
|
|
(...) The only thing that I'd suggest is making the name a little more clear. At first glance I thought it would be for QA (quality assurance) issues, like the infamous Tan bricks with black swirls, percieved degradations in tolerances, etc. Maybe (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) At a rough guess, I'd say that: (URL) a clear indication that despite all the ranting, Todd isn't changing his mind. (...) Jeez, ++Lar, I didn't see it as praise- or anything else that would "go to my head". I guess if I had some kind of (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) D'oh. You're right. Hmm. Replying to a post causes a "references" header to be inserted. There must be a way to use that to find replies to a post... Of course, this all assumes that you wouldn't just sub to the lugnet.lego.* groups. Since the (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) you know, you're not trying to convince anyone, you're just ranting... I seriously doubt Todd is going to change his mind on this anytime soon, so I think we should all let this die for a while, and see how things turn out... Dan (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings
|
|
(...) So the 2 Erics are the only people that gets it?? Man you must be so happy :)!!! I think they are spewing malarky - LEGO is not talking to us, a few AFOLS that work for lego are talking to us. LEGO can not talk to anybody - they are a company, (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | New Group Proposal - LUGNET.LEGO.QA
|
|
Now we all know about the recent restrictions possed on LEGO employees posting in an official capacity (which I agree with). Now this suggestion does not address all of the issues people against the idea might have but it does IMO address one of the (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) It is very difficult indeed for those of us who don't have access to standard NNTP ports through a company firewall. Darn tricky, at that point. I don't know if this applies to the LEGO folks or not, but it's something to consider. James (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: I can't access LUGNET through nntp today
|
|
(...) I think it's doing ident lookups... and I think the reason you have to wait 30 secs or so is cause you're dropping the auth packets and not rejecting them... so it's waiting for an answer. if you modified your firewall to reject connections to (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: The Relationship - LEGO and its Fans (was: Re: Official vs. unofficial LEGO postings)
|
|
(...) LOL! And I didn't mention slime or rampant running. :) John Hansen (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: I can't access LUGNET through nntp today
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3ab0c9d3.115224...net.com... (...) the (...) Yes, it does. This is a small log from my firewall, (Cisco PIX 515) where you can see that the nntp server needs a TCP connection on port 113 (auth (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
