|
|
 | | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
| (...) This sounds like a cool idea, but I don't think there's a need for it right now. The techies list is kinda low-interest -- it's good to have a public archive of the list (which we've already got), but I don't see a burning need to mirror it (...) (21 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: mailing list linkage
|
| (...) I think lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw.tech is long but it fits in with the existing scheme -Orion (21 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: mailing list linkage
|
| (...) Cool. Hmm, which to choose... It makes less work for me doing it the mailing list way, because of the incoming gateway translations at the e-mail level. What do we want to call it here? lugnet.cad.ldraw-tech? lugnet.cad.ldraw.tech? --Todd (21 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: mailing list linkage
|
| (...) we can easily also tell mailman to post each email to the mailing list to a group on the NNTP server. Dan (21 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99
|
| (...) I would rephrase that... under the most prevalent current limitation scheme being floated, (LSC eligible==LSC voting eligible) you would not be able to, and I would barely squeak by. Certainly other schemes could be floated, with different (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
|
