On Monday 03 February 2003 10:32 pm, Jeremy Nelson wrote:
> It seems that the current compromise solution seems to be acceptable to a
> large number of people:
[snip compromise that seems to be acceptable to a large number of people]
This is fine by me. I would support intervals of less granulari
nsx said:
>> Yes, I am campaigning for both better precision, and a change of the lower
>> notify interval limit. I suppose they sort of go hand in hand, since to
>> either abolish or lower the lower limit, you'd probably need to provide
>> better precision anyway.
Kev said:
>Personally, I don't
> Yes, I am campaigning for both better precision, and a change of the lower
> notify interval limit. I suppose they sort of go hand in hand, since to
> either abolish or lower the lower limit, you'd probably need to provide better
> precision anyway.
Personally, I don't see the problem with the
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:48:30PM +, Edward Brocklesby wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I got from nsx on IRC and in his
> mail was that he wanted a notify interval of less than 60 seconds, which is
> what I'm discussing here.
>
> I wouldn't have any problem with allow m
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 02:08:44PM -0500, Ben Winslow wrote:
> Edward Brocklesby wrote:
> [snip]
> > and I'm not likely to talk to someone who's here for 30 seconds and then
> > gone again
> [snip]
> >
> > -larne.
>
> Try using dial-up service over the US's PSTN. ;)
Nothing RFI chokes, modem
On Mon Feb 03, 2003; 12:48PM + Edward Brocklesby propagated the following:
> On Monday 03 February 2003 7:27 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > having finer granularity doesn't necessarily mean that it would be used to
> > have notify interval shorter than 60 seconds. it would also allow notify
>
On Monday 03 February 2003 7:27 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> having finer granularity doesn't necessarily mean that it would be used to
> have notify interval shorter than 60 seconds. it would also allow notify
> intervals of, for example, 90 seconds. there still might be a lower limit
> of 60 se
On 2003/02/02 15:26:55 +, Edward Brocklesby wrote:
> While this is a somewhat.. hotly debated topic on IRC, and I don't want to
> start that here, I will add my opinion; which is that I can't see a valid
> reason for a notify interval of less than 60 seconds. However, on the other
> hand:
Edward Brocklesby wrote:
[snip]
> and I'm not likely to talk to someone who's here for 30 seconds and then
> gone again
[snip]
>
> -larne.
Try using dial-up service over the US's PSTN. ;)
--
Ben
msg00259/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 30 January 2003 8:17 pm, john wrote:
[notify interval should be shorter]
While this is a somewhat.. hotly debated topic on IRC, and I don't want to
start that here, I will add my opinion; which is that I can't see a valid
reason for a notify interval of less than 60 seconds. Howeve
On my part, I would also add that although EPIC does its best never to
allow any RFC breakage (in other words: users who really want to send a
PRIVMSG in an ON MSG cannot do so without a certain amount of hassle),
there is no set standard pertaining to notify checking. On all non-RFC
issues, EPIC h
I'd assume that most users who would set notify_interval, would know what
they're doing, but I may be wrong.
I can certainly see the scenario in which a new user who likes to experiment,
unsuspectingly sets this to what most would consider an unreasonable value
(such as 1), but I also assume even
Normally I would not follow up to a request for discussion, but nsx asked
me to share why I believe in the status quo. The entirity of this message
is not a statement of policy or rules or anything of the sort with regard
to epic. It simply states my personal opinions as an epic user, and the
rea
13 matches
Mail list logo
