Re: Problem again with uk.l.m
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:26:52 +0100
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:41:06 <27cgm6x6rq.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>
uk.net.news.moderation Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
>On 2009-08-26, Wm... wrote:
>>From a technical (rather than content) POV the modbot should
>> either accept or reject. Altering (some might call it fixing) the
>> References: header or simil ...
|
Re: Problem again with uk.l.m
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:41:06 +0100
On 2009-08-26, Wm... wrote:
> Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:53:41 <slrnh97r74.k5v.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net>
> uk.net.news.moderation Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>
>>You haven't suggested such a thing - at least not in this thread.
>>You suggested removing all References lines from all Banter posts,
>>w ...
|
Re: Problem again with uk.l.m
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:59:44 +0100
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:53:41 <slrnh97r74.k5v.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net>
uk.net.news.moderation Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk>
>On 2009-08-25, Anthony R. Gold <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>> Great that slrn doesn't crash :-) But why do you call my suggestion to
>> remove just those wrong Referenc ...
|
Re: Problem again with uk.l.m
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:34:29 +0100
On 2009-08-25, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> Great that slrn doesn't crash :-) But why do you call my suggestion to
> remove just those wrong References lines: "crazy"?
Maybe I misunderstood you.
Did you mean (1) remove the whole References header from every banter
post, (2) remove the whole References header i ...
|
Re: Problem again with uk.l.m
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:53:41 -0500
On 2009-08-25, Anthony R. Gold <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
> Great that slrn doesn't crash :-) But why do you call my suggestion to
> remove just those wrong References lines: "crazy"?
You haven't suggested such a thing - at least not in this thread.
You suggested removing all References lines from all Ban ...
|
Re: Problem again with uk.l.m
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:12:06 +0100
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:33:11 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
> On 2009-08-24, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>
>> I ask because Adam claims that removing just those "spectacularly wrong"
>> References that you allege are caused by bugs in the banter system and are
>> causing errors to be reported by sl ...
|
Problem again with uk.l.m
Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
I'm just wondering if anyone has any answers as to why my last couple
of posts to uklm have not even reached the moderation queue? ...
|
uklm mods Post Id:75758
Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:22:05 +0100
uklm mods Post Id:75758
those things were actually true. the people involved are actually nice
and I wasn't just checking if you were awake.
It may have sounded like a soap opera but it does actually involve real
people I know.
They are not "bad" people, it is just the way things have turned out for
...
|
No longer welcome?
Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Have I been excommunicated from uklm?
A couple of my posts have failed to get through in the thread "Re:
Company claiming I've sent in a different unit for repair.", and in
the moderation history on moderation.org.uk it just shows a white
space next to the entry (rather than indicating the status of the
post). ...
|
Re: FAO moderators & usenet committee (was Re: more illegal canvassing by " Smith")
Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:01:23 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In message <7de88iF2bi6i5U1@mid.individual.net>, Steve Walker
<spam-trap@beeb.net> writes
>
>I guess that if a formal request was made by the urcm vote-taker or another
>usenet official then we might require the sig to be removed.
The votetaker would not be so ...
|
