i just tried posting with a prefix in the subject

[TEA] subject

but google groups did not show it as such!, just subject...

trying (TEA)

On Jul 27, 12:07 pm, SN wrote:
i just tried posting with a prefix in the subject

[TEA] subject

but google groups did not show it as such!, just subject...

seems (TEA) works
if you guys want to chime in as to usefulness of posting with a
prefixed subject
-may be better visible between spams
-unknowing posters may not know

SN writes:

i just tried posting with a prefix in the subject

[TEA] subject

but google groups did not show it as such!, just subject...

If you're trying out things like this, why not use alt.test?

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Lewis Perin wrote:
SN writes:

i just tried posting with a prefix in the subject

[TEA] subject

but google groups did not show it as such!, just subject...

If you're trying out things like this, why not use alt.test?

Better yet, use a real news reader and news service.


AP

On Aug 2, 5:32 am, Alan Petrillo wrote:
Lewis Perin wrote:
SN writes:

i just tried posting with a prefix in the subject

[TEA] subject

but google groups did not show it as such!, just subject...

If you're trying out things like this, why not use alt.test?

Better yet, use a real news reader and news service.

AP

i dont think so
since google read+writes to usenet, how is that NOT a real news reader
or service?

On Aug 2, 11:34 am, SN wrote:
On Aug 2, 5:32 am, Alan Petrillo wrote:

Lewis Perin wrote:
SN writes:

i just tried posting with a prefix in the subject

[TEA] subject

but google groups did not show it as such!, just subject...

If you're trying out things like this, why not use alt.test?

Better yet, use a real news reader and news service.

AP

i dont think so
since google read+writes to usenet, how is that NOT a real news reader
or service?

I've stayed out of all of the recent posts about spam and newsreaders/
usenet... but I'll hop in here just to clarify. Google is NOT a good
representation of the Usenet experience.

On the "reader" side, if you will, your interface to the newsgroups,
it is very limited and basic. It is like doing fine graphic work with
Microsoft Paint vs. a professional app like Photoshop. Sure, they are
both image editing programs but one can do thousands of things more
and better.

On the server side, Google's, they do very little beyond basic
interfacing with news servers. Sure you can post and read, but not
much else.

Now a true news client program has thousands of options and features
that address all of the problems you are facing. They allow you to
have a killfile to "ignore" individuals who post that you don't care
to read, or to block threads you deem SPAM that somehow passed the
servers filters, and much more.

A real news server does a lot of filtering for spam, crossposts, etc.
Google doesn't.

Of course this is a basic explanation but hopefully it helps clarify
some of Google's shortcomings. Google offers web-based news reading/
posting, no less no more. A real newsreader client in conjunction with
a real news server offers much more, more and much less, less.

well, technically it is a 'real' news reader and server, yes, web
based, dumbed down, simplified.
since it manages to do the job of uuencoding, uudecoding, posting,
processing messages using the usenet nntp protocols, messages
propagate to other news servers, therefore it is able to communicate
using the required standards.

more than 10 years ago there was almost no newsgroup spam, so when
they didnt have enough filtering back then it means they were not
real ?

google groups may not be how some people like it but it doesnt mean
its not 'real'.

what you're trying to say by a 'real' server is a PAID newsservice
provider
and as you pay more, you get more (usually).

i dont know a newsreader software that has these 'thousands' of
features and options,
more like a dozen features.

On Aug 2, 1:08 pm, SN wrote:
well, technically it is a 'real' news reader and server, yes, web
based, dumbed down, simplified.
since it manages to do the job of uuencoding, uudecoding, posting,
processing messages using the usenet nntp protocols, messages
propagate to other news servers, therefore it is able to communicate
using the required standards.

more than 10 years ago there was almost no newsgroup spam, so when
they didnt have enough filtering back then it means they were not
real ?

google groups may not be how some people like it but it doesnt mean
its not 'real'.

what you're trying to say by a 'real' server is a PAID newsservice
provider
and as you pay more, you get more (usually).

i dont know a newsreader software that has these 'thousands' of
features and options,
more like a dozen features.

Holy shit, are you serious? OK, time to go sit in the corner and take
your meds.

I was generalizing for the folks who aren't technical, but enjoy the
group and don't know a world exists outside of Google Groups. Please,
save your bullshit with me. I never said you had to pay for a news
server, see many people get access to their ISP's news server for
FREE, but never even know it. And FYI, many news clients are free/open
source so again no one has to pay for anything.

I honestly can't believe how inane people can be online at times. You
get a gold star for being one of the few on this NG to actually make
me angry with your trivial garbage.

- Dominic

i will save my bullshit, store it in a ziploc, and promise to take my
meds next time!

but would you like to show me where this "bullshit" is at?

google reads&posts messages that propagate to all of usenet?
doesnt do files so it doesnt need the uuenc/yenc etc, ok with that. my
bad

paid server (NH)... most of the spam as here in google groups
isp server... most of the spam as well
would you like me to compare the list of messages for an exact
comparison?

free readers,
i can count (when im on the meds) but i dont see thousands of features
maybe you have the real reader with thousands of features,
but since you did not port it to windows i am not able to find/use
it!

i guess because you cant use news.google.com:119 you are very upset!

your reply is highly brutal and inane as well,
please drink some green tea and relax.

"SN" wrote in message
oups.com...
seems (TEA) works
if you guys want to chime in as to usefulness of posting with a
prefixed subject
-may be better visible between spams
-unknowing posters may not know


If it's any help, I use Outlook express, access the group through my ISP,
and there's a spot in Expess where I can put in words that, if in a post,
will block the post. I'm not sure whether my ISP just has incredibly good
spam blockers or whether it's my list of spam words (or both), but I have
not received any of the adult spams (npot a single one), the only ones I get
(if you term them spam) are the drive-by teashop posters.

I'm sure there must be a Firefox newsgroup reader out there someplace, I
jsut haven't bothered to look since Express is filling my requirements right
now.

Melinda

On Aug 2, 9:37 pm, SN wrote:
i will save my bullshit, store it in a ziploc, and promise to take my
meds next time!

but would you like to show me where this "bullshit" is at?

google reads&posts messages that propagate to all of usenet?
doesnt do files so it doesnt need the uuenc/yenc etc, ok with that. my
bad

paid server (NH)... most of the spam as here in google groups
isp server... most of the spam as well
would you like me to compare the list of messages for an exact
comparison?

free readers,
i can count (when im on the meds) but i dont see thousands of features
maybe you have the real reader with thousands of features,
but since you did not port it to windows i am not able to find/use
it!

i guess because you cant use news.google.com:119 you are very upset!

your reply is highly brutal and inane as well,
please drink some green tea and relax.

Look, I have precious little time to argue on the Internet about such
silly stuff. I come to RFDT to get away from that mentality that
pervades most online communication. I made it clear that I stay away
from these types of posts for exactly this reason, and you were there
to help illustrate my point quite well.

I was, and stated, generalizing... and yes even exaggerating to make a
point. I have used many news readers and yes I have seen many that
range into tons of options. When it comes to binaries, PAR,
compression, etc. on top of all the standard features, web-based
remote control, queuing, and on and on.

As I stated Google Groups is like using a watered down, basic,
application. For the folks who are unaware that any other way to
interface with this group exists I was offering some leads to follow
and research if they cared to without getting technical and specific.

Honestly, I could care less about your argument. My statements stand,
disagree if you want and preach about uuencoding to a bunch of folks
who like tea and could care less.

oh, and see there is this other feature a "real" news reader has
called a killfile... welcome to mine.

- Dominic

SN wrote:

more than 10 years ago there was almost no newsgroup spam, so when
they didnt have enough filtering back then it means they were not
real ?

Ten years ago, servers didn't have filtering and cleanfeed didn't exist.
BUT, the clients were the same.

Ten years ago the standard clients had EXTENSIVE filtering, not to deal
with spam, but to deal with the huge amount of legitimate traffic that
a user might not want to read. Ten years ago, the filtering available on
the most basic newsreader was far more extensive than anything google
has available.

google groups may not be how some people like it but it doesnt mean
its not 'real'.

It's an abomination. It is a phenomenally crude and slow interface.
It is run by idiots who make no attempt to control abusive users.
Google has done more to damage Usenet than anything else out there,
even AOL's now-discontinued fiasco.

what you're trying to say by a 'real' server is a PAID newsservice
provider
and as you pay more, you get more (usually).

No, most ISPs provide NNTP service as part of your basic fee for internet
service. There is no reason to pay for a commercial NNTP provider unless
you are going to be reading news from a wide variety of different locations.

i dont know a newsreader software that has these 'thousands' of
features and options,
more like a dozen features.

I am using rn, and have been for about twenty years now. It has regular
expressions for message selection, which is a couple thousand features
right there. It's about as crude as a newsreader gets, and it's a hell
of a lot more powerful than google.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2007-08-03 13:59:10 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) said:

No, most ISPs provide NNTP service as part of your basic fee for internet
service. There is no reason to pay for a commercial NNTP provider unless
you are going to be reading news from a wide variety of different locations.

Many ISPs do provide their customers with NNTP servers, but they also
limit the retention rates and the number of groups to very constraining
servings. For the most part, I notice that those ISPs who still do
provide their customers with news service, also tend to limit the
retention of group down to less than 30 days or worse, sometimes even
something like a week or such. This makes it very difficult to
effectively track, search, archive, or carry on long threads.
--
Aaron Hsu

"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he
could do only a little." - Edmund Burke

Melinda wrote:
"SN" wrote in message
oups.com...
seems (TEA) works
if you guys want to chime in as to usefulness of posting with a
prefixed subject
-may be better visible between spams
-unknowing posters may not know


If it's any help, I use Outlook express, access the group through my ISP,
and there's a spot in Expess where I can put in words that, if in a post,
will block the post. I'm not sure whether my ISP just has incredibly good
spam blockers or whether it's my list of spam words (or both), but I have
not received any of the adult spams (npot a single one), the only ones I get
(if you term them spam) are the drive-by teashop posters.

I'm sure there must be a Firefox newsgroup reader out there someplace,

Yup. It's called Thunderbird.

I
jsut haven't bothered to look since Express is filling my requirements right
now.

Best of luck in that.

I see you've found the switch to put your added text in the right place.
My compliments on that. Outhouse comes with it defaulted wrong, and
most people never change it.


AP