Subject:
|
L-cad is getting irritating!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:20:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
852 times
|
| |
|
|
Twice this week now I've gotten a message that:
"The distribution of your message dated Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:02:47 -0600
with
subject "Re: LDAO 2.0.1, et al" has been postponed because the daily message
limit for the L-CAD list (50) has been exceeded. No action is required from
you; your message will be reprocessed automatically once the list owner
releases the list."
Then, for the next 12-24 hours I get no L-Cad messages.
Since when is there a daily message limit? Why? This is so irritating, as
it usually happens when I have a burning question for listers. I know we
went through this discussion before, but perhaps it's now time to give up on
L-Cad and stick with lugnet.cad. Now that lugnet.cad can be accessed via
newsreader, web-interface, or e-mail, I really don't see the downside to
this anymore.
Actually, the one downside I see is that we can't send binaries to lugnet,
but plenty of people complain about binaries on L-Cad, so perhaps this isn't
such a problem.
The upside includes: (1)no more "message limit" or other service
disruptions--Lugnet has proved very reliable and fast. (2)multiple avenues
of access--I couldn't respond to L-Cad questions over the weekend because I
was away from e-mail, but I could post to lugnet.dat via a newsreader.
(3)defragmentation of the L-Cad community--why have to check two separate
sources for info? Why have to post announcements, models, etc. to two
places (and wonder if people will be ticked off by the double-posting)? Why
wonder if the person who can answer your question is more likely to read
L-cad or lugnet.cad? (4)advantages of newsgroups for those who choose to
view it that way: threading, archiving, etc.
I also think that a more thriving lugnet.cad will be better at bringing new
blood into the community. If we can draw in several new part authors and a
programmer or two, the whole community benefits.
What do you others think? (And don't bother posting this on L-cad yet, it's
still down!)
-John Van
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating!
|
| Last is mostly my fault. I fired off a *bunch* of replies to various messages, instead of compiling them into just a few messages. I think I would be most happy if Todd would be willing to create a new ng for L-CAD. lugnet.cad.l-cad *sounds* (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
| | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating!
|
| John VanZwieten wrote in message ... (...) it's (...) It is being talked about (check Lugnet.admin.general) and to the extent where L-CAD would have it's *own* group nested in the Lugnet.cad hierarchy. Second. I have been debating whether or not to (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
| | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating!
|
| BTW, gating l-cad to lugnet won't solve the server choking problem. If anything, it will make it worse. But that won't bother those of us on the lugnet side of things, will it? Steve (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
| | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating!
|
| I went through the lugnet.admin.general discussion on this topic. Actually, I had looked for such a thread but would not have found it under the "Informal CFD..." heading had Todd not pointed it out to me. (Todd, what about putting new subjects in a (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
