CadSoft forums now available on element14

Thinking of all the flaming going on here I think Ive come to a conclusion

that would work for all parties.

If Cadsoft sketch out some guidelines on how to interface the nntp interface

for external interfaces it may work.

Here are some suggestion (open for changes of course):

Outgoing posts (from nntp to external interface):

-User interfaces that is created at the nntp server and imported into a

external interface (like web) should import and present the article in plain

text.

-The external interface's article should add a footer containing "This

message is imported from Cadsoft's NNTP groups".

Incoming posts (from external interface to the nntp server)

-Articles posted through a external interface should:

• Add a footer to the end of the posting when posted to the nntp server.

• The footer should contain a link to the original interface posting.

• The link to the original posting should not require any login to be

viewed

• non NNTP compatible characters should be removed before posted to the

NNTP server

• Spam should not be forwarded to the nntp server.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Fri, 09 July 2010 03:16

-The external interface's article should add a footer containing "This

 

message is imported from Cadsoft's NNTP groups".

Please, no!  We've got enough clutter and people with cutesey annoying

footers.  We don't need the software adding its own.  Besides, it shouldn't

matter where a message originated.

You are still thinking of this as a underlying NNTP server with "gateways".

Think of it flipped around for a minute.  The NNTP experience would still

be the same (actually a little better in a few places, see my other post),

but more and richer meta information about each post can be stored on a

real forum server.  Seriously, how does this not address most peoples wants

best?

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

"Olin Lathrop" <eagle@embedinc.com> wrote in message

news:i19uq5$k5t$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

You are still thinking of this as a underlying NNTP server with

"gateways".

Think of it flipped around for a minute.  The NNTP experience would still

be the same (actually a little better in a few places, see my other post),

but more and richer meta information about each post can be stored on a

real forum server.  Seriously, how does this not address most peoples

wants

best?

See all the noise above for the answer. The thing is we will never agree, so

Ill focus on satisfying both. If you never touch the nntp interface, you

will never notice, except for some posts being boring monochrome.

"Olin Lathrop" <eagle@embedinc.com> wrote in message

news:i1f59h$fs5$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

So anyone making suggestions you don't like is "noise"?  That's rather

arrogant, especially considering a number of the posts are yours.

Are you for real? All non-eagle topics are noise. And I was trying to please

you . (That is not easy!)

>> The thing is we will never agree, so Ill focus on satisfying both.

>

That's exactly what my suggestion addresses.  So once again, what's wrong

with it?

The only thing I can see wrong with your approach is that Cadsoft ends up

with the workload if something doesn't work. That is why NNTP should still

be the base of this forum, and those who wants colors and 'blinking ads' can

have the workload themselves.

Quote:

>> If you never touch the nntp interface, you will never notice, except

>> for some posts being boring monochrome.

>

I'm not following.  I don't know what you mean by "touching" the NNTP

interface, and what am I supposed to notice or not notice?

I mean touching as in "using/browsing/writing to".

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 12 July 2010 03:29

Quote:

Think of it flipped around for a minute.  The NNTP experience

would still

be the same (actually a little better in a few places, see my

other post),

but more and richer meta information about each post can be

stored on a

real forum server.  Seriously, how does this not address most

peoples

wants best?

 

See all the noise above for the answer.

So anyone making suggestions you don't like is "noise"?  That's rather

arrogant, especially considering a number of the posts are yours.

Quote:

The thing is we will never agree, so Ill focus on satisfying both.

That's exactly what my suggestion addresses.  So once again, what's wrong

with it?

Quote:

If you never touch the nntp interface, you will never notice, except

for some posts being boring monochrome.

I'm not following.  I don't know what you mean by "touching" the NNTP

interface, and what am I supposed to notice or not notice?

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Mon, 12 July 2010 03:29

Quote:

Think of it flipped around for a minute.  The NNTP experience

would still

be the same (actually a little better in a few places, see my

other post),

but more and richer meta information about each post can be

stored on a

real forum server.  Seriously, how does this not address most

peoples

wants best?

 

See all the noise above for the answer.

So anyone making suggestions you don't like is "noise"?  That's rather

arrogant, especially considering a number of the posts are yours.

Quote:

The thing is we will never agree, so Ill focus on satisfying both.

That's exactly what my suggestion addresses.  So once again, what's wrong

with it?

Quote:

If you never touch the nntp interface, you will never notice, except

for some posts being boring monochrome.

I'm not following.  I don't know what you mean by "touching" the NNTP

interface, and what am I supposed to notice or not notice?

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

"Olin Lathrop" <eagle@embedinc.com> wrote in message

news:i1f59h$fs5$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

So anyone making suggestions you don't like is "noise"?  That's rather

arrogant, especially considering a number of the posts are yours.

Are you for real? All non-eagle topics are noise. And I was trying to please

you . (That is not easy!)

>> The thing is we will never agree, so Ill focus on satisfying both.

>

That's exactly what my suggestion addresses.  So once again, what's wrong

with it?

The only thing I can see wrong with your approach is that Cadsoft ends up

with the workload if something doesn't work. That is why NNTP should still

be the base of this forum, and those who wants colors and 'blinking ads' can

have the workload themselves.

Quote:

>> If you never touch the nntp interface, you will never notice, except

>> for some posts being boring monochrome.

>

I'm not following.  I don't know what you mean by "touching" the NNTP

interface, and what am I supposed to notice or not notice?

I mean touching as in "using/browsing/writing to".