 | | 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?
|
|
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?
|
|
(...) True, canceling wouldn't work unless you get control.cancel. Spam aside for a second, I don't think ignoring cancels is very bad. People should assume that once they hit "post", it's public, like it or not. But then, there's the issue of spam (...) (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 believe I mean more like Larry's unwashed. I was referring to the set of messages which exist on RTL, and we are trying to prevent from spilling out onto lugnet.* (...) I meant to suggest the *.binaries, *.html and etc. groups be read-only (...) (26 years ago, 1-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Should RTL be hosted on this server?
|
|
(...) I don't see any problem with filtering on _technical_ grounds, like getting rid of binaries or html. It's when you're filtering on content that issues arise. (26 years ago, 1-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
