 | | Re: Some exciting things are happening!
|
|
(...) The new official channel is under a 'lego' heading: (URL) as the official channel for LEGO Direct is: (URL) discussion of LEGO Dacta products remains located here: (URL) line with things like LEGO Duplo: (URL) not to say it isn't still a bit (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Some exciting things are happening!
|
|
(...) suggests to me that it is for general discussion of DACTA rather than something like the .lego-direct group. I would expect you would call it .dacta-direct or .pitsco or something, to distinguish it from the product. Also, do your rules about (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: August Surprise...
|
|
(...) Sorry about that! Not sure exactly why the duplicate post blocker wasn't working. I was posting from an airport payphone booth while waiting for my email to finish syncronising so I could get back in the Southwest cattle call line.(1) The (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.events.brickfest, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Thank you, Thank you, Thank you
|
|
"r2" <lego@r2eng.com> skrev i meddelandet news:GFGFt9.Hq@lugnet.com... (...) I Agree completely! Thank you, Todd! -- Anders Isaksson, Sweden BlockCAD: (2 URLs) (23 years ago, 26-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Thank you, Thank you, Thank you
|
|
I agree - This is MUCH easier! r2 <lego@r2eng.com> wrote in message news:GFGFt9.Hq@lugnet.com... (...) been (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | x-http header?
|
|
hey, just an idea... when you get news-by-mail, there's an x-http header (or something similar), that will give you the url to the same message in the web interface... useful when you want to rate a message you just read. Is it possible to add that (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Thank you, Thank you, Thank you
|
|
Thank you for the new version of the posting verification. I received an email, promptly , sent my reply and my message was posted within a minute. It works great!!!!!! I can easily tolerate this painless extra step for us newsreader users. I seemed (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Are that many people really glad about the security stuff?
|
|
(...) You've expressed that opinion several times now and I don't see it as having been justified yet. I understand you have dark forebodings, etc. but I'm not sure I agree. This mechanism will keep out spoofers. It is not designed to stop all (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | E-Mail Authentication Error? (Was: Find your Birthday Buddy)
|
|
Todd, I replied to the authentication e-mail message on this one with an 'x' in the (...) option, and it seems to have been posted anyway. FYI. I realized that I had replied to all instead of where the follow ups were set to, so I changed my mind (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
I see this now works. Let me thank you Todd & Co. Work much easier. Sonnich Sonnich Jensen <sonnich@hot.ee> wrote in message news:GFAL9v.6qo@lugnet.com... (...) on (...) program. (...) generated (...) 2 (...) time (...) use. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: A possible enhancement idea
|
|
(...) Thanks for listening and working so diligently to improve this great website. John Hansen (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Well done, Todd!
|
|
Just tried out the new email confirmation, and I'm impressed! Well done! ROSCO (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Are that many people really glad about the security stuff?
|
|
(...) I have a feeling we'll find that it won't keep the really persistent trolls out, but we'll see. ROSCO (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Are that many people really glad about the security stuff?
|
|
In lugnet.general, Peter McLoone asked these things: (...) Glad - absolutely. (...) Yes, it really is. Overdue, perhaps, but good things take time. (...) Yes, it is. It is a regular annoyance and inconvenience to us now, but after a while, we will (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
Daniel Crichton <danielc@helio.co.uk> wrote in message news:GF8M7o.L2y@lugnet.com... (...) more (...) there's (...) Lugnet (...) I would also really like this solution, even though I am NOT a paid up lugnet member. If everyone still had access via (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
(...) Which is still the really scary and unfortunate fact. KDJ ___...___ LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: A possible enhancement idea
|
|
(...) Oh. Hmm. Yes, excellent idea. Or spool it into a processing queue that gets processed frequently and in a serial way. :-) -- Todd S. Lehman | LUGNET Admin <todd@lugnet.com> (23 years ago, 22-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
(...) but since you just sent two posts, you expected to get to auth messages... if you get one tomorrow morning, you'll probably be curious to see why... also, true, some people will automatically reply to auth messages sometimes... but if it's not (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message . (...) browser (...) Excuse me for just suggesting this option in another mail. I don't agree. A very simple way is to make the header look like this: Message_id 54dfDF7_&2532))sdrt4325ds which still is readable (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Email Authentication - Why not make it optional?
|
|
Another idea? It is much faster just to reply to the sent message. Many mailinglists use this system. Opening a page takes quite some time, while sending the mail can be done in just a few seconds. Sonnich Brad Hamilton <bhamilto1@home.com> wrote in (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jun-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
