 | | L-cad is getting irritating! —John VanZwieten
|
| | | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | 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! —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | (...) I agree. I haven't been following the discussions concerning this on the lugnet.admin.general ng lately, though. There's so many words there, like. But count me in as a supporter of the ng. This needs to be discussed on the L-CAD list, of (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Kim Toll
|
| | | | | | OK, so I won't post a 'me to' message to L-Cad, but I can post one here. So, FWIW I think moving to Lugnet would be an excellent idea. I'm all for it! (here's an out right commitment for you Todd!) I get it now... the list server was down. Makes (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | | | I can think of one drawback for moving to lugnet - you must have some sort of web access to subscribe to lugnet, while with l-cad you can subscribe with only an e-mail address and information on how to subscribe emailed to you by someone else. (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Hey man, it's 1999, not 1994! :) Is there anyone left on the planet who has e-mail access but who doesn't have web access? Besides, even if there was someone without web access, they could always send a subscription request via e-mail to (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Yes. Not to be pedantic, but there are gobs(1) of people that don't have home PCs, but who have email access from behind a firewall at work. In many cases they don't have web access. This may well be because they have access via some weird (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) I forgot to say that despite my pedantry, I am in favor of the change. ++Lar (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) OK, fair enough. A follow-up question, then -- is there anyone who (a) only has e-mail access and (b) also doesn't know anyone who does have web access and (c) can't go to a library or cyber-cafe to use a web page to sign up for something? (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I have been following all this, and the thread in lugnet.admin.general, and would like to chime in a little. Overall, I support this whole idea. LCad as a mailing list has its share of annoyances to me. Perhaps a dedicated group here would be (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | | | (...) know (...) need (...) Good to hear from you on this one, and bravo for remembering James' mother. If we formed a new group _and_ gatewayed L-cad to it, she would continue to receive messages as usual. Those who absolutely are unable or (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I haven't really given it any thought. I am flexible though, and I have confidence in Todd's judgement on how to do it. As long as I can get to it, I am happy. (...) That is a cool idea. And I am sure the Jessiman family would appreciate it. (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) The person who emailed you the info can post it to the group, or mail to Todd, and I'm sure either another member of the group could fill out the form for him, or Todd would enter him/her into the Lugnet database. It's slightly more trouble, (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Linc Smith
|
| | | | | 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! —Linc Smith
|
| | | | | | Linc Smith wrote in message ... (...) Ignore that... Fredrik is right, too much text that goes nowhere. I should know since I wrote half of it. :) LINC (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | 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! —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Only depends on whether the current ml server is ditched or not, right? Bill Katz has offered several times to move the list to his safe & stable ml server. (...) Nope. --Todd (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Sorry about the subject-line confusion -- I agree, subject lines should be changed as appropriate. In this case, the L-CAD sub-topic was branched out of an original CFD on a robotics sub-group, and for a long spell, there were two (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: L-cad is getting irritating! —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) In the web interface, could your really-cool thread-tree show a dotted line when there's a subject change? Often, the subject header changes sometime after the messages change subject. So a total disconnect would be counter- productive. Steve (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Subject-line mutation in thread graphs —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | [from lugnet.cad] Steve Bliss: (...) That would be cool! Or maybe a slight color change (not too many pixels there to work with for dotted line, especially on horizontal lines branching off of vertical lines. BTW, if you do "View thread details" (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Subject-line mutation in thread graphs —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | Todd Lehman wrote in message <36a85318.73703417@l...et.com>... (...) Actually, (...) what (...) the old (...) be (...) out of (...) were two (...) messaging. (...) line (...) sometime (...) counter- (...) there (...) of (...) old (...) I guess the (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
