Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.

On Dec 30, 8:27*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Is it just me? *The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
> huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
> day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.

What Usenet service/server are you reading from and posting to? What
client program?

John Kuthe...

Dave Smith wrote:
>
>Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
>huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
>day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.

There are typically fewer posts between Christmas and New Year...
people are busy with holiday preparations, traveling, and spending
time with guests.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
>huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
>day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.

I had issues yesterday too. Some posts I downloaded then they showed
as no longer available. Must have been some cybergods issues.

koko
--
Food is our common ground, a universal experience
James Beard

www.kokoscornerblog.com

Natural Watkins Spices
www.apinchofspices.com

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
> huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
> day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.

It's not just you. I thought it was *my* news server screwing up. I
know they have an ongoing header syncronization issue, but I didn't
know it was wider spread than that. Yesterday was particularly bad
all day long. My first download lost 20% of the posts and it
continued for the rest of the day. I didn't notice the numbers today,
so I don't know how many out of what showed up, but several posts have
red x's next to them which means the bodies aren't on my server and
they will disappear on refresh, never to appear again. That's one
reason I'm using Google more. I see a reply by someone that I want to
read, so I search for it and I've discovered that Google is more apt
to find it when you search by Header ID than when you enter words in
their Advanced Search boxes.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>>Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
>>huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
>>day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went
>>through.
>
> I had issues yesterday too. Some posts I downloaded then they showed
> as no longer available. Must have been some cybergods issues.
>
> koko

Same with me, at least 20 msgs alltold, just gone after the header
was shown. I'm on forte also. Very frustrating, eh?

pavane

wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
> >huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
> >day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.
>
> I had issues yesterday too. Some posts I downloaded then they showed
> as no longer available. Must have been some cybergods issues.

It was my fault. I sent Google another fifty cents to
slow down John Kuthe's posts to RFC, and they slowed down
all posts to RFC. I made it clear to Google customer
support that only Kuthe's posts were to receive the
special treatment, so it should be fixed by now. Sorry
about that.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:02:14 -0800, sf > wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> > Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
> > huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
> > day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.
>
> It's not just you. I thought it was *my* news server screwing up. I
> know they have an ongoing header syncronization issue, but I didn't
> know it was wider spread than that. Yesterday was particularly bad
> all day long. My first download lost 20% of the posts and it
> continued for the rest of the day. I didn't notice the numbers today,
> so I don't know how many out of what showed up, but several posts have
> red x's next to them which means the bodies aren't on my server and
> they will disappear on refresh, never to appear again. That's one
> reason I'm using Google more. I see a reply by someone that I want to
> read, so I search for it and I've discovered that Google is more apt
> to find it when you search by Header ID than when you enter words in
> their Advanced Search boxes.

Pulling a John Kuthe here. That post took 3 hours to show up... well,
at least it showed up. Usually when they disappear, they don't ever
show on my end and the only way I know it's out there in cyberspace is
if someone replies.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

On 30/12/2011 4:34 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:02:14 -0800, > wrote:

> Pulling a John Kuthe here. That post took 3 hours to show up... well,
> at least it showed up. Usually when they disappear, they don't ever
> show on my end and the only way I know it's out there in cyberspace is
> if someone replies.

I guess it is still going on. I saw from Pandora's response to you about
stuffed squid that you had replied to me on that thread. Your post never
showed up here.

On 12/30/2011 9:53 AM, pavane wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
>>> huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
>>> day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went
>>> through.
>>
>> I had issues yesterday too. Some posts I downloaded then they showed
>> as no longer available. Must have been some cybergods issues.
>>
>> koko
>
> Same with me, at least 20 msgs alltold, just gone after the header
> was shown. I'm on forte also. Very frustrating, eh?
>
> pavane
>

Oddly enough, my ES server is working just spiffy today. Just like the
old days. It's about god-damned time!! :-)

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:24:05 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
> > >huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
> > >day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.
> >
> > I had issues yesterday too. Some posts I downloaded then they showed
> > as no longer available. Must have been some cybergods issues.
>
> It was my fault. I sent Google another fifty cents to
> slow down John Kuthe's posts to RFC, and they slowed down
> all posts to RFC. I made it clear to Google customer
> support that only Kuthe's posts were to receive the
> special treatment, so it should be fixed by now. Sorry
> about that.

Somebody sure screwed up. Ten posts in the threads between the one
I'm replying to and Kalmia's OP Kitchen Sink post have a red x next to
them and every single post after the OP does too. IOW: all replies to
Kalmia (and there are quite a few) and every thread after that will
disappear when I refresh.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 08:54:43 -0800, wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>>Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
>>huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
>>day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.

You are pretty damn stupid. Usenet posts are not sent through email.
And they cannot be returned to you as undeliverable. You're an idiot.

Your post makes no sense, just like the rest of your failing brain.
Yes, it is just you.

On Dec 30, 4:29*pm, Usenet Support Personnel > wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 08:54:43 -0800, wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
>
> >>Is it just me? *The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
> >>huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
> >>day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.
>
> You are pretty damn stupid. *Usenet posts are not sent through email.
> And they cannot be returned to you as undeliverable. You're an idiot.
>
> Your post makes no sense, just like the rest of your failing brain.
> Yes, it is just you.

It's a googlegroups thing; you wouldn't understand.

On 31/12/2011 8:24 AM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
>>> huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
>>> day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.
>>
>> I had issues yesterday too. Some posts I downloaded then they showed
>> as no longer available. Must have been some cybergods issues.
>
> It was my fault. I sent Google another fifty cents to
> slow down John Kuthe's posts to RFC, and they slowed down
> all posts to RFC. I made it clear to Google customer
> support that only Kuthe's posts were to receive the
> special treatment, so it should be fixed by now. Sorry
> about that.

You should have paid them a dollar to stop the (un)Kuthe posts entirely.
That would have been a new year bonus for the rest of us.

--

Krypsis

"pavane" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
>>>huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
>>>day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went
>>>through.
>>
>> I had issues yesterday too. Some posts I downloaded then they showed
>> as no longer available. Must have been some cybergods issues.
>>
>> koko
>
> Same with me, at least 20 msgs alltold, just gone after the header
> was shown. I'm on forte also. Very frustrating, eh?

I'm using forte under outlook express. I just went into the newsgroup,
unsubscribed to alt.binaries.food, left outlook express, re-entered it,
re-joined alt.binaries.food and it downloaded 19K or so headers,
including the ones that had been arbitrarily deleted as above. And
there they all were, very readable including Karen's baked chicken
and Steve's plated duck. Have you tried this?

pavane

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 12:44:34 -0500, "pavane" >
wrote:

> I'm using forte under outlook express.

I don't understand that statement. OE is a newsreader and Agent is a
news reader, you don't download headers from OE, you read them there.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

Krypsis wrote:
>
> On 31/12/2011 8:24 AM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > It was my fault. I sent Google another fifty cents to
> > slow down John Kuthe's posts to RFC, and they slowed down
> > all posts to RFC. I made it clear to Google customer
> > support that only Kuthe's posts were to receive the
> > special treatment, so it should be fixed by now. Sorry
> > about that.
>
> You should have paid them a dollar to stop the (un)Kuthe posts entirely.
> That would have been a new year bonus for the rest of us.

But then Kuthe might give up entirely
on Google Groups. I want him to keep
beating his head against it.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 12:44:34 -0500, "pavane" >
> wrote:
>
> > I'm using forte under outlook express.
>
> I don't understand that statement. OE is a newsreader and Agent is a
> news reader, you don't download headers from OE, you read them there.

Well, it's certainly confusing. Still, he didn't say he's using Agent,
he's using the Forte news server, just like you are. He's using OE as
his client, and you are using (Forte) Agent.

It's all in the headers.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:05:18 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

> Well, it's certainly confusing. Still, he didn't say he's using Agent,
> he's using the Forte news server, just like you are. He's using OE as
> his client, and you are using (Forte) Agent.

I'm using APN, which used to be Forte but hasn't been for a long time.
I think it's Easynews now, but don't quote me on that.
>
> It's all in the headers.

I didn't expand the headers because I don't care. He needs to get his
terms straight. Forte is a news reader, not a news server.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 12:44:34 -0500, "pavane" >
wrote:

>
>"pavane" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
>>>>huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
>>>>day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went
>>>>through.
>>>
>>> I had issues yesterday too. Some posts I downloaded then they showed
>>> as no longer available. Must have been some cybergods issues.
>>>
>>> koko
>>
>> Same with me, at least 20 msgs alltold, just gone after the header
>> was shown. I'm on forte also. Very frustrating, eh?
>
>I'm using forte under outlook express. I just went into the newsgroup,
>unsubscribed to alt.binaries.food, left outlook express, re-entered it,
>re-joined alt.binaries.food and it downloaded 19K or so headers,
>including the ones that had been arbitrarily deleted as above. And
>there they all were, very readable including Karen's baked chicken
>and Steve's plated duck. Have you tried this?

I was using APN and have been having problems on and off for awhile.
Unsubscribing didn't work so I switched over the eternal-september and
all is good now. I'll finish up the month with APN for binaries and
get something else then so I don't have to go back and forth.

Lou

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:05:18 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> Well, it's certainly confusing. Still, he didn't say he's using Agent,
>> he's using the Forte news server, just like you are. He's using OE as
>> his client, and you are using (Forte) Agent.
>
> I'm using APN, which used to be Forte but hasn't been for a long time.
> I think it's Easynews now, but don't quote me on that.
>>
>> It's all in the headers.
>
> I didn't expand the headers because I don't care. He needs to get his
> terms straight. Forte is a news reader, not a news server.

*yawn*

pavane

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:00:35 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888 wrote:

> On Dec 30, 4:29*pm, Usenet Support Personnel > wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 08:54:43 -0800, wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>Is it just me? *The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
>>>>huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
>>>>day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.
>>
>> You are pretty damn stupid. *Usenet posts are not sent through email.
>> And they cannot be returned to you as undeliverable. You're an idiot.
>>
>> Your post makes no sense, just like the rest of your failing brain.
>> Yes, it is just you.
>
> It's a googlegroups thing; you wouldn't understand.

He doesn't post through Google Groups. Apparently YOU don't
understand either.

Anybody else need some support? Go cry someplace else.

On Jan 1, 8:20*pm, Usenet Support Personnel > wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:00:35 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888 wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 4:29 pm, Usenet Support Personnel > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 08:54:43 -0800, wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:27:17 -0500, Dave Smith
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>Is it just me? The volume of new posts appears to have dropped. I had
> >>>>huge time gaps between bunches of new posts yesterday and in the last
> >>>>day I have had two posts returned as undeliverable, but others went through.
>
> >> You are pretty damn stupid. Usenet posts are not sent through email.
> >> And they cannot be returned to you as undeliverable. You're an idiot.
>
> >> Your post makes no sense, just like the rest of your failing brain.
> >> Yes, it is just you.
>
> > It's a googlegroups thing; you wouldn't understand.
>
> He doesn't post through Google Groups. *Apparently YOU don't
> understand either.

Sorry, lately I have been getting some of my gg posts returned to my
email, marked as undeliverable. I jumped to the conclusion DS was also
using googlegroups, based on this shared experience.

>
> Anybody else need some support? *Go cry someplace else.

Pick another screenname.

On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 21:35:26 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

> lately I have been getting some of my gg posts returned to my
> email, marked as undeliverable.

I have too!
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

On 02/01/2012 12:35 AM, spamtrap1888 wrote:

>
> Sorry, lately I have been getting some of my gg posts returned to my
> email, marked as undeliverable. I jumped to the conclusion DS was also
> using googlegroups, based on this shared experience.
>
>>
>> Anybody else need some support? Go cry someplace else.
>
> Pick another screenname.
>

No. I do not use Google Groups.

This was the first time I have ever had email about undeliverable mail
to a news group. It coincided with a huge gaps between posts and a major
drop in posting traffic.

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:18:08 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 02/01/2012 12:35 AM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
> >
> > Sorry, lately I have been getting some of my gg posts returned to my
> > email, marked as undeliverable. I jumped to the conclusion DS was also
> > using googlegroups, based on this shared experience.
> >
> >>
> >> Anybody else need some support? Go cry someplace else.
> >
> > Pick another screenname.
> >
>
> No. I do not use Google Groups.
>
> This was the first time I have ever had email about undeliverable mail
> to a news group. It coincided with a huge gaps between posts and a major
> drop in posting traffic.

I know exactly what you're talking about, Dave. I got a usenet post
returned to me the other day as undeliverable too.

BTW: I found out what to do about posts that arrive with no body
attached. I've been refreshing and watching them disappear forever,
but apparently if you can find the command "Mark Available", you
should be able to get the body on your next refresh.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

Dave Smith > wrote:

<snip>

> No. I do not use Google Groups.
>
> This was the first time I have ever had email about undeliverable mail
> to a news group. It coincided with a huge gaps between posts and a
> major drop in posting traffic.

<coming late to this discussion>

Those sound like the symptoms of a news-server problem.

What most people don't realize is that posts to a newsgroup are mail
which is addressed to the newsgroup. Indeed, in the dark ages of
usenet, posters sent mail to the newsgroup address (I'm showing my age
here). This is particularly useful for moderated groups since the
message is simply forwarded to the moderator.

As for the news server issues, it could be denial of service, a surge in
updates and message traffic, maintenance issues, or comm problems. I
have little experience with Agent and none with the apn server, so I
don't feel I can speculate on the exact cause, but only in general
terms.

--
Mike
Visit my forums at:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/mikes.place.bar/
http://forums.delphiforums.com/mikes_place1/start
You can find my books at my Amazon.com author page:
http://tinyurl.com/695lgym

On 1/2/2012 9:12 AM, Mike Muth wrote:
> Dave > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> No. I do not use Google Groups.
>>
>> This was the first time I have ever had email about undeliverable mail
>> to a news group. It coincided with a huge gaps between posts and a
>> major drop in posting traffic.
>
> <coming late to this discussion>
>
> Those sound like the symptoms of a news-server problem.
>
> What most people don't realize is that posts to a newsgroup are mail
> which is addressed to the newsgroup. Indeed, in the dark ages of
> usenet, posters sent mail to the newsgroup address (I'm showing my age
> here). This is particularly useful for moderated groups since the
> message is simply forwarded to the moderator.
>
> As for the news server issues, it could be denial of service, a surge in
> updates and message traffic, maintenance issues, or comm problems. I
> have little experience with Agent and none with the apn server, so I
> don't feel I can speculate on the exact cause, but only in general
> terms.
>

In my case, I get time out errors and connection refusals from the
server. I interpret this to mean that the servers aren't able to handle
the traffic. I interpret that to mean that they're short on cash will
probably just disappear soon.

dsi1 > wrote:

<snip>

> In my case, I get time out errors and connection refusals from the
> server. I interpret this to mean that the servers aren't able to
> handle the traffic. I interpret that to mean that they're short on
> cash will probably just disappear soon.

That's certainly one possibility. The bandwidth issues could be
upstream of the news server. Usenet traffic has dropped off in recent
years, so any established server should be able to handle the continuing
load without upgrades for anything but security. Of course, the
provider could be re-purposing equipment or simply failing to replace
items as they fail.

Another possibility is that they (or their connection provider) have
reduced their bandwidth. If Forte did it, then it's a sign that usenet
has gotten a lower priority and may well disappear from their servers.
If Sprint (or other bandwidth provider) did it, then it's likely because
they failed to anticipate load levels and are feeling a crunch.

I can't see how any provider could fail to anticipate surges in
bandwidth demand at Christmas-time. All those new devices are gonna get
used heavily for a while. Even when usage drops off to normal levels,
that additional equipment means continuing additional load.

Still, Usenet doesn't need that much bandwidth. At it's peak
popularity, much of Usenet's traffic was carried over 64k circuits.
That much bandwidth would be more than enough today - even more so
because a large block of people use Google Groups, which is http for
them.


--
Mike
Visit my forums at:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/mikes.place.bar/
http://forums.delphiforums.com/mikes_place1/start
You can find my books at my Amazon.com author page:
http://tinyurl.com/695lgym

On Jan 2, 10:26*am, Mike Muth > wrote:
> dsi1 > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > In my case, I get time out errors and connection refusals from the
> > server. I interpret this to *mean that the servers aren't able to
> > handle the traffic. I interpret that to mean that they're short on
> > cash will probably just disappear soon.
>
> That's certainly one possibility. *The bandwidth issues could be
> upstream of the news server. *Usenet traffic has dropped off in recent
> years, so any established server should be able to handle the continuing
> load without upgrades for anything but security. *Of course, the
> provider could be re-purposing equipment or simply failing to replace
> items as they fail.
>
> Another possibility is that they (or their connection provider) have
> reduced their bandwidth. *If Forte did it, then it's a sign that usenet
> has gotten a lower priority and may well disappear from their servers.
> If Sprint (or other bandwidth provider) did it, then it's likely because
> they failed to anticipate load levels and are feeling a crunch.
>
> I can't see how any provider could fail to anticipate surges in
> bandwidth demand at Christmas-time. *All those new devices are gonna get
> used heavily for a while. *Even when usage drops off to normal levels,
> that additional equipment means continuing additional load.
>
> Still, Usenet doesn't need that much bandwidth. *At it's peak
> popularity, much of Usenet's traffic was carried over 64k circuits.
> That much bandwidth would be more than enough today - even more so
> because a large block of people use Google Groups, which is http for
> them.

I completely agree with you - how much bandwidth do you need to handle
Usenet posters? The fact that they are not able to handle the traffic
does not bode well for the future of Usenet. The reality is that
nobody is going to make much dough running an NNTP server - it's
pretty much a labor of love. Love and a couple of bucks might get you
a bucket of algae but you can forget about getting a greasy pork
sandwich.

>
> --
> Mike
> Visit my forums at:http://www.facebook.com/groups/mikes...s_place1/start
> You can find my books at my Amazon.com author page: *http://tinyurl.com/695lgym

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:42:47 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 21:35:26 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> > wrote:
>
>> lately I have been getting some of my gg posts returned to my
>> email, marked as undeliverable.
>
> I have too!

Yet another person who doesn't use Google Groups to post with.

OK, here's a plausible scenario (for non-google groups users): Some
malicious posters could be inserting a Mail-Followup-To: header into
their posts with an email address that is tricking newsreaders into
emailing from the unsuspecting users news client. That is the default
action when a Mail-Followup-To: is encountered (in the absence of a
Followup-To: header). And a good way to collect email addresses since
many news/mail combo readers use different "From:" addresses when
posting and mailing (the later usually being a legit email address).

And both Thunderbird (Dave Smith) and Forte Agent (sf) are MUA's (Mail
User Agents), capable of sending email in response to usenet posts.

Posting an example of what has been returned to you is the next course
of action if you really want to solve this. That way Usenet Support
Personnel can see the return address, the address that was attempted,
and track down the original message and examine the headers. We do
not debug Google Group issues. Sorry Spamtrap. You're on your own
there.

There's no sense speculating on the cause (or a continued debate)
without that information.

Sincerely,

Usenet Support Personnel

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:48:18 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
wrote:

> The fact that they are not able to handle the traffic
> does not bode well for the future of Usenet. The reality is that
> nobody is going to make much dough running an NNTP server - it's
> pretty much a labor of love.

Different servers do different things and for some reason they are not
in sync, I don't know why.
--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

On 1/2/2012 8:44 PM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:48:18 -0800 (PST), >
> wrote:
>
>> The fact that they are not able to handle the traffic
>> does not bode well for the future of Usenet. The reality is that
>> nobody is going to make much dough running an NNTP server - it's
>> pretty much a labor of love.
>
> Different servers do different things and for some reason they are not
> in sync, I don't know why.

It looks like the best days of Usenet are behind us.

sf > wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:48:18 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
>> The fact that they are not able to handle the traffic
>> does not bode well for the future of Usenet. The reality is that
>> nobody is going to make much dough running an NNTP server - it's
>> pretty much a labor of love.
>
> Different servers do different things and for some reason they are not
> in sync, I don't know why.

In my experience, servers have always been somewhat out of sync. That was
a major quirk in the 90's but got better for a while. It was severe enough
that quite a number of us subscribed to multiple news feeds and combined
those feeds. Otherwise, there were sometimes so many missing pieces that
threads could be somewhat surreal.

--
Mike
Visit my forums at:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/mikes.place.bar/
http://forums.delphiforums.com/mikes_place1/start
You can find my books at my Amazon.com author page:
http://tinyurl.com/695lgym

On 3/01/2012 6:12 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 1/2/2012 8:44 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:48:18 -0800 (PST), >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that they are not able to handle the traffic
>>> does not bode well for the future of Usenet. The reality is that
>>> nobody is going to make much dough running an NNTP server - it's
>>> pretty much a labor of love.
>>
>> Different servers do different things and for some reason they are not
>> in sync, I don't know why.
>
> 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.

--

Krypsis

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.

Most notably, newsgroups posts are public and show up in search
engines, whereas email does not.

I think Mike is conflating newsgroups and mailing lists (which still
exist).



Steve

Sqwertz > wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:11:46 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

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.


Steve

Sqwertz wrote:
> 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.

Posts to moderated newsgroups start their flow as an email message to
the moderation address that is built from the group's name.

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.

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?

George L

On Jan 3, 3:08*pm, 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?
>
> George L

[Like]