 | | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message <3663128b.28905770@l...et.com>... (...) This is true, you would need to take control.cancel and rec.toys.lego if you wanted every single cancel. You probably wouldn't want to do that, since the last statistics that I saw (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
|
(...) I don't think I like it either... Not because I'm morally against modifying NNTP headers on a private server (I would be in Usenet context) but because of the confusion which would ensue (more below). (...) Yeah, splitting is definitely (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
|
(...) By "unwashed" I take it you mean those who haven't completed the news-posting setup? Or do you mean Larry's version of "unwashed"? (...) But doesn't that validate and/or encourage the practice of posting HTML, binaries, spam, etc.? (...) Yes, (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
|
I'm thinking really hard on this, but I'm not sure there is any _clean_ solution other than allowing at-will cross-posting between RTL and lugnet groups. This is because: A) NNTP guidelines indicate that the Newsgroup header should always be (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
|
(...) Actually, I just meant it should just *ignore* the extra entries in the Newsgroups header. But that doesn't make sense, especially after your further discussion about the evils of having separated threads spawned from cross-posted messages. (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
|
(...) Not that necessarily advocating the practice of moving existing messages, but it does help keep the thread intact. Which helps readers follow what's going on. It also _strongly_ encourages new followups to go where the T.P. want them to go. (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
|
(...) Nah, it's 100% my mistake -- I shouldn't have used the word "hosted" in the subject line -- I should have used "carried." "Should RTL be carried on this server?" (...) Aha, yes -- good point -- too much potential for accusations of elitism (in (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
|
(...) Hmmm. I'm not sure I like that. If I go to the trouble of explicitly saying where a message should go (and if it's somewhere that that message has every right to be) it seems like the server is making a mistake if it loses some of my (...) (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
|
(...) Don't worry -- it's literally impossible for anyone to "move" rtl anywhere, short of convincing everyone (well, at least every news admin) in the world to change. (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
|
(...) Hey, I'M the topic police. No, seriously -- if a thread is getting out of hand and off-topic, a gentle reminder, or several, with followup-to set, should be sufficient. I don't see a need to retroactively relocate articles. (26 years ago, 30-Nov-98, to lugnet.general)
|
