Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
On Jan 3, 3:33*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:08:12 -0600, George Leppla wrote: > > On 1/3/2012 4:46 PM, Sqwertz wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:11:46 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote: > > >>> > > *wrote: > > >>>> >>On 2 Jan 2012 19:12:50 GMT, Mike Muth wrote: > > >>>>> >>> *What most people don't realize is that posts to a newsgroup are mail > >>>>> >>> *which is addressed to the newsgroup. > > >>>> >>That's absurd. *They may have similar headers, but newsgroup posts are > >>>> >>handled*completely* *differently than email from start to finish.. > > >>> > *Most notably, newsgroups posts are public and show up in search > >>> > *engines, whereas email does not. > >> To you, maybe. *But to me, in technical speak, they are sent VIA > >> drastically different protocols to different kinds of servers (that > >> have almost nothing in common) run by completely different types of > >> companies. *From there it gets even more diversely different. > > > Hypothetical situation: *One person posts one recipe a day on RFC. > > Another person posts many, many messages on RFC about email protocols. > > > Hypothetical questions: > > > 1) Which poster is on topic? > > 2) Which poster is cluttering up the newsgroup? > > 3) All other things being equal, which poster will be kill-filed by more > > people? > > I'm not starting advertising or OT threads, which at last count the > opinion seemed to be divided equally. *And you'll notice is Mike is > posting here as well, putting him in the same category as person #1. > And he's spreading disinformation which I am only here attempting to > correct (entrapment! ;-) > > So the answer is: *The other guy. > > Give it a rest, George. Muth made his interests clear. I wonder who's paying sqwertz to make all these posts. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
Sqwertz > wrote:
> On 2 Jan 2012 20:26:07 GMT, Mike Muth wrote: > >> That's certainly one possibility. The bandwidth issues could be >> upstream of the news server. Usenet traffic has dropped off in >> recent years, > > It has increased exponentially in the last 10 years. Binary traffic has. Text groups have mostly declined. >> so any established server should be able to handle the continuing >> load without upgrades for anything but security. > > Usenet servers are constantly increasing their storage space and > bandwidth (when available). Binaries are driving that. Especially now that people are using more wasteful .mkv encoding. >> Of course, the >> provider could be re-purposing equipment or simply failing to replace >> items as they fail. > > Uh, not likely unless you're tearing down your news service completely > (as was the case with ISP-based news servers 2-7 years ago). People still use ISP-based news servers. They haven't gone away. >> Another possibility is that they (or their connection provider) have >> reduced their bandwidth. > Never happens. It does indeed. A short while before AT&T got rid of their usenet servers (around a dozen years ago), bandwidth was cut way back. Others have done the same thing. Providers prioritize traffic. Usenet is not up there and that has the same effect as cutting bandwidth. I've been places where all nntp traffic was blocked by firewalls. My provider did that. It wasn't for lack of bandwidth, either. We had 6 gigabits of bandwidth for unclassified traffic - for around 2,000 computers. Commercially, large providers would prefer that people buy their downloads, so they discourage usenet >> Still, Usenet doesn't need that much bandwidth. > > I don't what planet you live on, but that is completely false. It doesn't. > Why do you think most people now have to PAY for usenet whereas > previously it was free? It was free when it was bundled by ISPs, provided by corporations, univesities and DARPA, or subsidized like individual.net was. There have been pay for use usenet servers for at least 20 years. I've been using one for 17 years. > You are totally forgetting Usenet is a huge binary repository for > downloading and uploading. There is more bandwidth and storage > required every day compared to the previous day. No, I'm not. I was addressing text traffic only. >> At it's peak >> popularity, much of Usenet's traffic was carried over 64k circuits. >> That much bandwidth would be more than enough today > Can we quote you on that? Since I was talking about text traffic, yes. -- Mike Visit my forums at: http://www.facebook.com/groups/mikes.place.bar/ http://groups.google.com/group/mikes-place1/topics http://forums.delphiforums.com/mikes_place1/start You can find my books at my Amazon.com author page: http://tinyurl.com/695lgym |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
Sqwertz > wrote:
> On 2 Jan 2012 19:12:50 GMT, Mike Muth wrote: > >> What most people don't realize is that posts to a newsgroup are mail >> which is addressed to the newsgroup. > > That's absurd. They may have similar headers, but newsgroup posts are > handled *completely* differently than email from start to finish. It is the way things are. Where the servers still accept mail, you can post to a usenet group by sending e-mail to the group. The non-usenet google groups still supports this. Usenet posts are indeed mail and the recipient is the newsgroup. Because of problems with hacking, it's harder to inject that mail into the stream than it used to be. The traffic flows over a different port (119 unless you are doing secure nntp). The RFC which covers the nntp protocol even says that the news server uses "SMTP-like commands and responses." NNTP functions in most ways like e-mail bulletin boards which were in vogue during the 90's. Then, there's this from RFC 850 (Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages), " A standard format for mail messages has existed for many years on the ARPANET, and this format meets most of the needs of USENET. Since the ARPANET format is extensible, extensions to meet the additional needs of USENET are easily made within the ARPANET standard. Therefore, the rule is adopted that all USENET news articles must be formatted as valid ARPANET mail messages, according to the ARPANET standard RFC 822." So, deny it if you like. The standard says that a usenet post is a valid mail message. >> As for the news server issues, it could be denial of service, a surge >> in updates and message traffic, maintenance issues, or comm problems. > > None of that makes any sense at all. Stick to cooking rather than > technical discussions. All of that makes sense. I was maintaining, configuring, and deploying servers for a dozen years before you posted to Usenet. I only just retired last year. My 25 years experience, degree in computer science, and certifications tell me that those things could all be problems. You just don't want to accept what I say. You really are being OCD about me aren't you. Deal with it. -- Mike Visit my forums at: http://www.facebook.com/groups/mikes.place.bar/ http://groups.google.com/group/mikes-place1/topics http://forums.delphiforums.com/mikes_place1/start You can find my books at my Amazon.com author page: http://tinyurl.com/695lgym |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
Sqwertz > wrote:
> To you, maybe. But to me, in technical speak, they are sent VIA > drastically different protocols to different kinds of servers (that > have almost nothing in common) run by completely different types of > companies. From there it gets even more diversely different. RFC 850 says, " Therefore, the rule is adopted that all USENET news articles must be formatted as valid ARPANET mail messages." Posts are email which is propagated differently, but not in a drastically different manner. The ports are, of course, different. Obviously, the infrastructure and inter-server traffic is different - but, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about messages going to the nntp servers. BTW, you may not have noticed, but companies which provide usenet service also provide e-mail services. As most people know, the reverse is often not true. -- Mike Visit my forums at: http://www.facebook.com/groups/mikes.place.bar/ http://groups.google.com/group/mikes-place1/topics http://forums.delphiforums.com/mikes_place1/start You can find my books at my Amazon.com author page: http://tinyurl.com/695lgym |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
(Steve Pope) wrote:
> Sqwertz > wrote: <snip> >>To you, maybe. But to me, in technical speak, they are sent VIA >>drastically different protocols to different kinds of servers (that >>have almost nothing in common) run by completely different types of >>companies. From there it gets even more diversely different. > > I'm not sure I'd call NNTP a "drastically different" protocol from > SMTP. It's a different protocol. But it operates at the same layer, > in roughly the same way. As RFC 850 and RFC 977 specify. Well, they don't address the OSI layer. The USENET protocol was patterned on the mail protocol and borrowed freely and copiously. -- Mike Visit my forums at: http://www.facebook.com/groups/mikes.place.bar/ http://groups.google.com/group/mikes-place1/topics http://forums.delphiforums.com/mikes_place1/start You can find my books at my Amazon.com author page: http://tinyurl.com/695lgym |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:08:12 -0600, George Leppla wrote: >> Hypothetical situation: One person posts one recipe a day on RFC. >> Another person posts many, many messages on RFC about email >> protocols. >> Hypothetical questions: >> 1) Which poster is on topic? >> 2) Which poster is cluttering up the newsgroup? >> 3) All other things being equal, which poster will be kill-filed by >> more people? > I'm not starting advertising I haven't posted advertisement one. In fact, I've posted what amounts to an anti-advertisement in which I told readers to NOT buy my books. > or OT threads, I haven't done so. Saying you haven't doesn't jibe well with the archive dating back to 2005. > which at last count the > opinion seemed to be divided equally. And you'll notice is Mike is > posting here as well, putting him in the same category as person #1. > And he's spreading disinformation Which actual citations from the RFC's prove to have been accurate and not disinformation at all. > which I am only here attempting to > correct (entrapment! ;-) Blame your behavior on me. After all, it's always the other guys problem. -- Mike Visit my forums at: http://www.facebook.com/groups/mikes.place.bar/ http://groups.google.com/group/mikes-place1/topics http://forums.delphiforums.com/mikes_place1/start You can find my books at my Amazon.com author page: http://tinyurl.com/695lgym |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
George Leppla > wrote:
<snip> > Hypothetical situation: One person posts one recipe a day on RFC. > Another person posts many, many messages on RFC about email protocols. > > Hypothetical questions: > > 1) Which poster is on topic? > 2) Which poster is cluttering up the newsgroup? > 3) All other things being equal, which poster will be kill-filed by > more people? Your point is well taken. I shall do better in the future. -- Mike Visit my forums at: http://www.facebook.com/groups/mikes.place.bar/ http://groups.google.com/group/mikes-place1/topics http://forums.delphiforums.com/mikes_place1/start You can find my books at my Amazon.com author page: http://tinyurl.com/695lgym |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
On 4/01/2012 11:11 AM, Mike Muth wrote:
> > wrote: > >> On 2 Jan 2012 20:26:07 GMT, Mike Muth wrote: >> >>> That's certainly one possibility. The bandwidth issues could be >>> upstream of the news server. Usenet traffic has dropped off in >>> recent years, >> >> It has increased exponentially in the last 10 years. > > Binary traffic has. Text groups have mostly declined. > >>> so any established server should be able to handle the continuing >>> load without upgrades for anything but security. >> >> Usenet servers are constantly increasing their storage space and >> bandwidth (when available). > > Binaries are driving that. Especially now that people are using more > wasteful .mkv encoding. > >>> Of course, the >>> provider could be re-purposing equipment or simply failing to replace >>> items as they fail. >> >> Uh, not likely unless you're tearing down your news service completely >> (as was the case with ISP-based news servers 2-7 years ago). > > People still use ISP-based news servers. They haven't gone away. > >>> Another possibility is that they (or their connection provider) have >>> reduced their bandwidth. > >> Never happens. > > It does indeed. A short while before AT&T got rid of their usenet > servers (around a dozen years ago), bandwidth was cut way back. Others > have done the same thing. Providers prioritize traffic. Usenet is not > up there and that has the same effect as cutting bandwidth. > > I've been places where all nntp traffic was blocked by firewalls. My > provider did that. It wasn't for lack of bandwidth, either. We had 6 > gigabits of bandwidth for unclassified traffic - for around 2,000 > computers. > > Commercially, large providers would prefer that people buy their > downloads, so they discourage usenet > >>> Still, Usenet doesn't need that much bandwidth. >> >> I don't what planet you live on, but that is completely false. > > It doesn't. > >> Why do you think most people now have to PAY for usenet whereas >> previously it was free? > > It was free when it was bundled by ISPs, provided by corporations, > univesities and DARPA, or subsidized like individual.net was. There > have been pay for use usenet servers for at least 20 years. I've been > using one for 17 years. It's never really been free. The cost of the traffic was always paid for by someone, somewhere. For universities, at least in recent years, it was a service probably provided from student fees. My Govt. department dumped the service years ago when they began to restrict the types of access employees had. NNTP was one of the first services to get the flick. It was probably just simply blocked at the firewall. Up until recently it was a subsidiary service provided by my ISP, Optus. They've deemed it unworthwhile and have dumped it. I don't know how many users of NNTP Optus had but very few of the people I deal with on a daily basis have even the slightest clue what newsgroups are. Most are even ignorant of Google Groups (though that can only be a good thing!). > >> You are totally forgetting Usenet is a huge binary repository for >> downloading and uploading. There is more bandwidth and storage >> required every day compared to the previous day. > > No, I'm not. I was addressing text traffic only. I've never used NNTP for binary traffic. Text has been my only need. > >>> At it's peak >>> popularity, much of Usenet's traffic was carried over 64k circuits. >>> That much bandwidth would be more than enough today > >> Can we quote you on that? > > Since I was talking about text traffic, yes. > > -- Krypsis |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
On 4/01/2012 11:41 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2012 00:11:25 GMT, Mike Muth wrote: > >> > wrote: >> >>> On 2 Jan 2012 20:26:07 GMT, Mike Muth wrote: >>> >>>> That's certainly one possibility. The bandwidth issues could be >>>> upstream of the news server. Usenet traffic has dropped off in >>>> recent years, >>> >>> It has increased exponentially in the last 10 years. >> >> Binary traffic has. Text groups have mostly declined. > > I didn't know we were distinguishing between the two. Usenet is > Usenet. You seem seemed ot be talking about it generally. There are plenty of alternatives to binary NNTP services these days so I wouldn't be overly perturbed if they went away. > >>>> so any established server should be able to handle the continuing >>>> load without upgrades for anything but security. >>> >>> Usenet servers are constantly increasing their storage space and >>> bandwidth (when available). >> >> Binaries are driving that. Especially now that people are using more >> wasteful .mkv encoding. >> >>>> Of course, the >>>> provider could be re-purposing equipment or simply failing to replace >>>> items as they fail. >>> >>> Uh, not likely unless you're tearing down your news service completely >>> (as was the case with ISP-based news servers 2-7 years ago). >> >> People still use ISP-based news servers. They haven't gone away. > > I can't think of one. Except maybe Panix (we've all heard of them, > right?). All others are outsourced, if they even provide it in the > first place. All providers in Australia provided their own usenet servers, it was never outsourced. That is, they did, but in recent years they have been dumping the service leaving it up to the users to locate alternatives. The emails advising of cessation of NNTP service usually provide links to local alternatives. > >>>> Another possibility is that they (or their connection provider) have >>>> reduced their bandwidth. >> >>> Never happens. >> >> It does indeed. A short while before AT&T got rid of their usenet >> servers (around a dozen years ago) > > I spoke with Tom Ippolito often over the years and used their news > servers right up until they shut them down back in ... 2008(?) or so > (hardly a dozen years ago). That never happened. Bandwidth had been > increasing and new machines/hardware had been added within the last > year of service. Nothing had been re-purposed until the very end. > >> I've been places where all nntp traffic was blocked by firewalls. My >> provider did that. It wasn't for lack of bandwidth, either. We had 6 >> gigabits of bandwidth for unclassified traffic - for around 2,000 >> computers. > > You're talking something totally different now. > >> Commercially, large providers would prefer that people buy their >> downloads, so they discourage usenet > > Huh? > >>>> Still, Usenet doesn't need that much bandwidth. >>> >>> I don't what planet you live on, but that is completely false. >> >> It doesn't. > > Well, submit a proposal to all the major NSP's to swap all traffic to > 56K modems and ISDN lines and see how far you get. > >> Since I was talking about text traffic, yes. > > You were talking about Usenet in general, even lumping all the > hardware required into the equation. And that's what I was > addressing. Now you're just backpeddling. Err, that's backpedalling. The term "peddling" relates to vending of goods or services. > > -sw -- Krypsis |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
On 4/01/2012 7:15 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 1/2/2012 10:11 PM, Krypsis wrote: >> On 3/01/2012 6:12 PM, dsi1 wrote: >>> >>> It looks like the best days of Usenet are behind us. >> >> That is true. My internet provider, the 2nd largest in Australia, has >> dumped Usenet and no longer provides access. Soon the time will come >> when only dedicated Usenet servers/services will provide usenet access. >> That fact alone will deny the vast majority of users access to Usenet as >> many can't get beyond a browser. >> > > It's hard to believe that this remnant of the 90s has lasted so long. > Most people will be forced to migrate to GG as they adopt tablets and > hand-held devices. I guess someone could put out a killer NNTP app for > tablets and prolong Usenet but that's a little crazy. As it goes, GG > looks to be the only game in town. OTOH, I'm hoping for a wildly > unpredictable future rather than where all this is appearing to be heading. That unpredictable future is becoming rather predictable I fear! Most people on the internet these days know nothing beyond what their browser brings them hence the popularity of web based forums. Most of these people would have been dead in the water back some 20-30 years ago when everything was text based with simple line editors like Elm and HTML and hyperlinks were way off in the future. -- Krypsis |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
In article >,
Krypsis > wrote: > There are plenty of alternatives to binary NNTP services these days so I > wouldn't be overly perturbed if they went away. I don't use binary NNTP. Most people don't. Those who do, use it very intensively. I believe the key concept is copyright violation. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
Sqwertz wrote:
> Krypsis wrote: > >> There are plenty of alternatives to binary NNTP services these days so I >> wouldn't be overly perturbed if they went away. > > If binary usenet went away it would probably spell the end of all > Usenet. Usenet providers would not stay in business just to serve > text groups. They make their money off of binaries. There is no > money to be made in text groups. The fact that there are pay servers > are the only reason Usenet is still alive. The free servers would not > be able to handle the remaining demand if all the people using pay > providers for usenet suddenly switch over to the major free providers. > > If illegal binaries were no loiger available VIA usenet, all the folks > that here mostly for the binaries would go away. There are plenty of amateur text-only UseNet servers out there. When I signed up for eternal-sepember I checked that they offer the text groups and didn't even check if they offer the binary groups. I have no idea if my own NSP carries the binary groups because I, like very many text-only UseNet posters, don't consider the binary UseNet groups to be in the same realm. To me they are a different application that happens to use the same transport. It's only a matter of personal perspective but I think it's a perspective held by very many posters. If UseNet returned to amateur only I'm not convinced the text-only groups would change much other than continuing their gradual decline that's been happening since day one of the original forever September. UseNet started as an amateur project on BSD 4.1 VAX hosts running uucp so a switch to amateur shouldn't be a huge change. > All this is very fragile considering that if the MPAA and other > anti-piracy groups step up their enforcement, Usenet servers will come > under great scrutiny. All it takes is one greedy congressman. And > there's no shortage of those. Plus it might be nice to get UseNet declared a common carrier in law. That way trolls would face potential criminal prosecution. Since trolls have been fighting a battle of attrition against UseNet since 1993 because every new poster on every group arrives with an empty local kill file and therefore starts out seeing the trolls - Any method that reduces the most aggrevious trolls at the source is a good thing for losing new posters by attrition. Not that the feds would prosecute any but the worst but even a real but small chance of prosecution takes the price for stalking from zero to non-zero and many would stop the first time someone was tossed in jail for doing it. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
Sqwertz wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote: > >> Posts to moderated newsgroups start their flow as an email message to >> the moderation address that is built from the group's name. > > <sigh> yes - there is that one rare exception. Being on the moderation teams for 3 active and 1 defunct newsgroups it's an exception I see daily and more. >> Posts to unmoderated newsgroups haven't had a flow that included the >> same transport as email since NNTP was invented and UseNet was connected >> to the ARPAnet. That's so long ago the Internet didn't even have the >> same name as the one we use today. > > I exchanged email and news VIA UUCP not TOO long ago... ;-) No NNTP > or SMTP required :-) The last time I sent anything over UUCP would have been around 1988. I don't have any cans of Spam or packages of Twinkie anywhere near that old. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
On 1/4/2012 2:16 AM, Krypsis wrote:
> On 4/01/2012 7:15 PM, dsi1 wrote: >> On 1/2/2012 10:11 PM, Krypsis wrote: >>> On 3/01/2012 6:12 PM, dsi1 wrote: >>>> >>>> It looks like the best days of Usenet are behind us. >>> >>> That is true. My internet provider, the 2nd largest in Australia, has >>> dumped Usenet and no longer provides access. Soon the time will come >>> when only dedicated Usenet servers/services will provide usenet access. >>> That fact alone will deny the vast majority of users access to Usenet as >>> many can't get beyond a browser. >>> >> >> It's hard to believe that this remnant of the 90s has lasted so long. >> Most people will be forced to migrate to GG as they adopt tablets and >> hand-held devices. I guess someone could put out a killer NNTP app for >> tablets and prolong Usenet but that's a little crazy. As it goes, GG >> looks to be the only game in town. OTOH, I'm hoping for a wildly >> unpredictable future rather than where all this is appearing to be >> heading. > > That unpredictable future is becoming rather predictable I fear! Most > people on the internet these days know nothing beyond what their browser > brings them hence the popularity of web based forums. Most of these > people would have been dead in the water back some 20-30 years ago when > everything was text based with simple line editors like Elm and HTML and > hyperlinks were way off in the future. > The dream of us boomers is the computers that we saw in the Star Trek. We're almost there, I think. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
On 1/4/2012 3:15 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 1/2/2012 10:11 PM, Krypsis wrote: >> On 3/01/2012 6:12 PM, dsi1 wrote: >>> >>> It looks like the best days of Usenet are behind us. >> >> That is true. My internet provider, the 2nd largest in Australia, has >> dumped Usenet and no longer provides access. Soon the time will come >> when only dedicated Usenet servers/services will provide usenet access. >> That fact alone will deny the vast majority of users access to Usenet as >> many can't get beyond a browser. >> > > It's hard to believe that this remnant of the 90s has lasted so long. > Most people will be forced to migrate to GG as they adopt tablets and > hand-held devices. I guess someone could put out a killer NNTP app for > tablets and prolong Usenet but that's a little crazy. As it goes, GG > looks to be the only game in town. OTOH, I'm hoping for a wildly > unpredictable future rather than where all this is appearing to be heading. Personally, I have no plan to depend entirely on a tablet or handheld. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
On 1/4/2012 3:28 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 1/4/2012 3:15 AM, dsi1 wrote: >> On 1/2/2012 10:11 PM, Krypsis wrote: >>> On 3/01/2012 6:12 PM, dsi1 wrote: >>>> >>>> It looks like the best days of Usenet are behind us. >>> >>> That is true. My internet provider, the 2nd largest in Australia, has >>> dumped Usenet and no longer provides access. Soon the time will come >>> when only dedicated Usenet servers/services will provide usenet access. >>> That fact alone will deny the vast majority of users access to Usenet as >>> many can't get beyond a browser. >>> >> >> It's hard to believe that this remnant of the 90s has lasted so long. >> Most people will be forced to migrate to GG as they adopt tablets and >> hand-held devices. I guess someone could put out a killer NNTP app for >> tablets and prolong Usenet but that's a little crazy. As it goes, GG >> looks to be the only game in town. OTOH, I'm hoping for a wildly >> unpredictable future rather than where all this is appearing to be >> heading. > > Personally, I have no plan to depend entirely on a tablet or handheld. > 2 years ago, it would have been unthinkable that I would buy a tablet computer. The latest info I have is that sales of tablets have reached about 72 million units in 2011. My guess is that it will continue to grow for the next few years. The kids will have no problem with a hand-held device as their primary computer. Adults will resist but the reality is that a tablet with an open OS can be sold for $200 or less. Desktop PCs and iPads cannot. I can guess the outcome when buyers are faced with the choice of a either a $600+ desktop or something less than half the price. In the future, we'll all be doing the unthinkable. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
bounced mail
In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:43:04 -0800, Dan Abel wrote: > > > In article >, > > Krypsis > wrote: > > > >> There are plenty of alternatives to binary NNTP services these days so I > >> wouldn't be overly perturbed if they went away. > > > > I don't use binary NNTP. > > There is no difference in protocols for binary and text. Obviously, everything on the internet is binary. Let me reword my sentence: I don't use NNTP services that primarily cater to those who almost exclusively transfer binary material rather than text. I use three servers: 1. My ISP has a server. It doesn't carry binaries (but it has ABF and a bunch of others). They only have 355 customers left who use it, though, and it isn't cost effective. They said when the hardware dies, it won't be fixed. I use it about once a week, to read three groups that exist only on that server. 2. My ISP has a limited number of connections to Supernews. I can't get it to work with my usual client. It works fine with Thunderbird. 3. I use Eternal September for 99.99% of my use. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
e mail | Barbecue | |||
e mail | Barbecue | |||
Tea Mail | Tea | |||
OT - I Need Your E-Mail | General Cooking | |||
OT If you're outside of US and try to send e-mail to Verizon e-mail address, good luck | General Cooking |