 | | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) This isn't correct. The lugnet.com machine and the Apache software it's running can answer to anything that they're configured to answer to, without impacting performance. Currently, there is a mapping at pair.com (ISP) which associates (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) Sendmail is actually the SMTP daemon, the program that accepts email messages being thrown at a certain machine (after which youi can retrieve them from that machine with pop3d) . My sendmail is working perfectly, tho. janssen.dynip.com is my (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) Well, the point isd that hugin.etc thinks it's name isn't ldraw.org, but hugin.etc.. Then it returns that to the user. There are special services available with some domain-registry-services, that give you another layer in between which will (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) Oh, sure. All parts that go into the updates go through a peer review process, then the collection is assembled by Terry for distribution. Even assuming the non-Lego parts survive the voting, all that would be needed is policy on Terry's end (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) I am totally opposed to this. LDraw was started to model Lego elements and that is what we have adhered to. And as long as I have the watch, so to speak, I will not knowingly allow fictitious parts into an official update. I even have some (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Organizing the Site Revamp
|
|
(...) This tactic of registration, just by its intrusive nature, is evil. Not to mention, riddled with about a *ton* of technical details that really shouldn't need to be worked out. LDraw is in a continual state of growth. If anyone *really* wants (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) It is my understanding that that is how it works. When you type "www.lugnet.com", that request is processed by a name server, which links that name to the proper address, the 204.302.23 stuff. But all you see is lugnet.com So if memorial on (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) Is there a way (or rules) to prevent non-TLG parts from creeping into the official LDraw updates? That seems like the only practical/logical danger...any other objections (like mine) would be personal/subjective. I don't use LDraw/LEdit enough (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Subgroup for Revamp?
|
|
(...) Short term, set up a group for discussion. Long term -- integrate the sites together in crucial areas, like the setup of tlg models newsgroups and then automatically generating dat files that correspond with the posts.. similar to online (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Larritarians (was RE: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) Funny story, and nice to remember him by. I am sad that I didn't get to know him well, and only exchanged a few emails. From what I hear, he was a great guy. I'm sorry, Larry, everyone.. Keep Building!! -Tim <>< (URL) timcourtne ICQ: 23951114 (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) :) Um, I didn't know there was a thing out there for MOC bricks.. interesting... (...) Yep, I don't mean any offense either, and I agree with you Todd. (...) Another good idea.. group, lets keep the creative juices flowing.. Ldraw Consortium? (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) I think it would be great -- I don't know of any existing restrictions other than the possibility that no one has published their efforts in this regard. I would be more receptive to other brand-name parts than to mangled pieces, however -- (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) So would I (personally). (...) Me too. In fact, I would take a stronger position against clone bricks than against purely-MOC bricks. This isn't to suggest that every official TLG element is a fragrant flower, but IMHO all clone elements are (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup lugnet.cad.dev
|
|
(...) The ml isn't currently gatewayed with the ng. A gateway could always be established, however, if the need arose. (...) It is (or at least was a few minutes ago) when you sent out your other message. --Todd (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) You did a good job of it, though I don't think you'll like the replies from people (personal prediction). (...) I would personally severely disapprove. Though it could be argued to include clone bricks (which your described part would fall (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup lugnet.cad.dev
|
|
We're not gatewayed, right? That is, I got a message from L-CAD@LISTSERV.UH.EDU that I replied to and I went to the people still subscribed to the list, but it did not appear here. That's what I expected would happen if we weren't gatewayed. (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Non-TLG Parts
|
|
I'm not sure how the best way to broach this subject, but to jump head first best. First, I have wondered how the community feels about the creation of non-standard parts. By this I mean parts that TLG has not created ( at least not to my knowledge (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup lugnet.cad.dev
|
|
But can we set the l.c.d for a Digest? I preferred the LCAD list in Digest form, this Live Feed is driving me nuts. I already get 100+ emails/day at home, and 3-900/day at work. (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) have (...) Would this be visible to a visitor accessing ldraw.org? It would be very nice if the URL in the text box on a browser stayed at ldraw.org instead of making the visitor think thye had the wrong address. --Bram Bram Lambrecht / o o \ (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw announcements/updates
|
|
(...) For the site discussion, I think a temporary (or permanent if you desire) group name would be most appropriately: lugnet.cad.dev.site, denoting the site for the .dev group.. (...) Whoa! If I had $$ I would probably use that group too.. Keep (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Subgroup for Revamp?
|
|
(...) I like the idea of a short-term newsgrouping experiment, but since the discussions would be centered around a permanently evolving resource, maybe the experiment would work better with a transient resource, project, or event instead. In other (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDraw announcements/updates
|
|
(...) If a separate mailing list were set up for update notifications, then everything would have to be posted to two places (there and here). Another possibility: Simply create .cad.announce or .cad.updates for this purpose. That way anyone could (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) Um, then pair.com is a better choice than Osiris. Mike-friendly modeler.. what's wrong with Ldraw? :) (...) Good ideas.. A model competition isn't a bad idea, with a set as a prize or credit in Auczilla..something like that (the $$ for the (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Subgroup for Revamp?
|
|
(...) Probably good, so we can weed out general ldraw discussion from site discussion. I see the Re: proposal.. thread has been chopped up into the set/piece discussion too..that would help on that as well. lugnet.cad.dev.site? Keep Building!! -Tim (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) My final version shouldn't take more than that because the bulk of that is program downloads. The website shouldn't be more than 500k at the most.. sites are small.. Maybe to be safe we can be allotted 15mb? Keep Building!! -Tim <>< (URL) (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Organizing the Site Revamp
|
|
(...) Yeah, or major subidrectories. They can be put into: /download/ /gettingstarted (too long/cumbersome?) /tlg/ /links/ /contribute/ /credits/ /memorial/ (...) Probably. (...) Oops <blush> Thanks for the reminder, we can't forget who got us (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup lugnet.cad.dev
|
|
Hi, one of the lurkers here. Todd, is there any form of digest mode for any of the newsgroups? If not, is there one in the planning stages? If so, I would be one to use it, since i do all my mailing lists that way. -Doug G (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Double-mailings -- notice, apology, and fix
|
|
[Followups set to lugnet.admin.general] Whoops -- my apologies if you have received a few double-mailings (if you're subscribed to groups via e-mail). The news-by-mail gateway is set up as a cron job activated every 5 minutes. It wasn't checking (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) It was my understanding that 'ldraw.org' would be registered with at least two "name servers". So anyone trying to access ldraw.org would have that request resolved to the correct IP address - which would be the hugin server. (I hope I (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Subgroup for Revamp?
|
|
Would it be a good idea to create a temporary ng just for discussion, communication, and coordination on the JJM/L-CAD site rework? It probably isn't all that necessary, but it would be an interesting experiment in short- term newsgrouping. Steve (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
I'm not sure this idea has merit, it might be viewed as unnecessary or overkill. It'd definitely be one more detail to deal with in parts updates. Should we start adding maintenance comments when parts are renumbered, renamed or corrected? These (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Organizing the Site Revamp
|
|
(...) If you want to do them all at once, you may want to wait until after the content has been decided and worked on and we've got a fairly stable new site. That's probably more productive than doing image-links first. (...) I'm not sure I'm on the (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) It was my understanding that 'ldraw.org' would be registered with at least two "name servers". So anyone trying to access ldraw.org would have that request resolved to the correct IP address - which would be the hugin server. (I hope I (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) I'd agree with you, except that TLG ships composite elements which also come apart, such as minifig torso/arms/hands/head assemblies (not that I think L- CAD is going to start releasing shortcut files like those particular TLG elements). I (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Organizing the Site Revamp
|
|
I need to know what areas of this site people will be expecting in the future or can possibly anticipate so I can make all the image links at one time if possible. This is because its a heck of a lot easier than going back and doing a new one like (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) Just for reference, pair gives 40mb and an unlimited number of potential e-mail accounts, although only one is an actual pop-type account. But by using procmail or something similar you could have webmaster@ldraw.org forwarded to bob@home.com (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [meta] Subject Headers (was Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy)
|
|
Exactly. The subject line matters more to people getting the messages by e- mail than it does to people using a newsreader. I'm not sure about people using the web interface, because some pages are threaded and some aren't. So I guess web-users (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
|
(...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: [meta] Subject Headers (was Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy)
|
|
Those of use who choose to use email (or can't get newsgroup access) would appreciate having useful headers. It also makes it easier to follow messages that have been saved away due to useful content. --- Dave Hylands Email: DHylands@creo.com 3700 (...) (26 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [meta] Subject Headers (was Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy)
|
|
(...) Maybe John means on output (writing/sending) more than on input (reading)... At least that's how I'd interpret the suggestion...It's certainly OK to change the Subject line on a whim when the topic of the thread changes direction. Makes later (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
