| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Thomas Garrison wrote:
> I don't get this. The LUGNET limitation would be that posting setup is
> HTTP-based, but I think it's all text, really. After that, HTTP is an
> *option*, but you can get by (better, IMHO) with SMTP or SMTP and NNTP.
> I'm not seeing how someone who can do NNTP would have trouble with
> SMTP---heck, I use the same client for both[1].
I give up. Maybe you're right. I just thought I'd make a suggestion
that could possibly make lugnet better. Who knew I was straying into
debate territory. Let's everyone chant together. Lugnet is perfect!
Lugnet is perfect! Change is bad...
Since I'm done with the suggestion part, I've set FUT to debate.
Have fun,
Don
PS. For debate material, the "one true client to rule them all" is
EMACS. However, I've long ago been seduced into using (gasp) IE for
lugnet because I'm lazy.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Message awaiting authentication
|
| (...) Who said that? I'm not seeing that in this thread, although the thread (and other related ones) has some aspects of "usenet is better because it is free" koolaid drinking to it. So it may be that there's some rigidity present, yes... just not (...) (21 years ago, 27-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Message awaiting authentication
|
| (...) I don't get this. The LUGNET limitation would be that posting setup is HTTP-based, but I think it's all text, really. After that, HTTP is an *option*, but you can get by (better, IMHO) with SMTP or SMTP and NNTP. I'm not seeing how someone who (...) (21 years ago, 26-Nov-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
