New usenet hierarchy proposal
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: data disapear
Next: monitor if computer is in idle
From: dpb on 7 May 2010 15:59 Ulrich Korndoerfer wrote: > .... > That's a "risk", yes. It is very important to propagate the to be new > place as broad as possible, eg. in this NG before it is shut dowwn. MS pulling the plug on their server array isn't going to shut down anything except their servers...the group name is already on about a zillion mirrored nntp servers already so what's the point? Just go to another server if/when MS does remove nntp access and "keep on truckin'". The difficulty will be that you'll only be proselytizing to the regulars and the very limited number of those who post questions (and bother to read anything other than responses to their own postings). Unless you go to a mirrored nntp server might as well use some other web forum or somesuch as the primary point in a usenet group is that it's available for the drive-by query and unless there's a way for those who haven't been told ahead of time to find the group there will be no traffic. --
From: Ulrich Korndoerfer on 7 May 2010 16:17 Hi, dpb schrieb: > Ulrich Korndoerfer wrote: >> > .... > >> That's a "risk", yes. It is very important to propagate the to be new >> place as broad as possible, eg. in this NG before it is shut dowwn. > > MS pulling the plug on their server array isn't going to shut down > anything except their servers...the group name is already on about a > zillion mirrored nntp servers already so what's the point? Just go to > another server if/when MS does remove nntp access and "keep on truckin'". > AFAIK if the primary server/ the host goes away, you no longer can post to the groups it hosted. Where should the mirrors send the posts to? It might be possible (as long as the mirrors do not remove them) to *read* old posts, but not to post new ones, when MS shuts the host down. -- Ulrich Korndoerfer VB tips, helpers, solutions -> http://www.proSource.de/Downloads/
From: Schmidt on 7 May 2010 17:20 "Ulrich Korndoerfer" <ulrich_wants_nospam(a)prosource.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:%2390NFrh7KHA.6072(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > To be precise: if one subscribes to any common NNTP-services > provider and there lists the available ngs, the vb group will not > show up. > At least I think so. Perhaps Olaf could clarify this. Things would > change if gmane is reflected to the other NNTP-servers too > (I don't know). That depends on, if the ISP decide, to list the gmane-namespace - the gmane-server is not hidden from public usenet .... some public reachable usenet-servers as e.g. 'aioe.org' do mirror and list some of the gmane-groups, mostly the linux-kernel mailinglist reflections, gmane has to offers as one of the entries in its namespace. But aside from that, I'm not that sure what would change, even when gmane would be mirrored completely and be seen and listed everywhere on usenet. We would need to ensure to publish the new group-name- hierarchy (if we really plan to do that at all) in either case on as many commonly known community-sites as possible - and at this occassion we should of course mention the appropriate newsserver which takes the leading role. Seriously, do you remember yet, how and where you got the information, which groups are there to discuss VB-topics? Was your first try, to open a NewsReader and check what your ISP had to offer - or did you searched the Web? At least nowadays I would suspect any new users (searching for help) would either enter their direct question into google - or search something like: "vb new discussion groups" Don't know how easy it would be, to bring something to the front there, which contains the new informations (on a central page on mvps.org for example, which anybody who runs his own website could link to, including the group- members in all the other countries as well) ... Currently the above search-words bring up our current group on the "google-groups-site", so if the very last posting into this group is, where we moved to, then we'd be found without problems for a while... ;-) > > Even just going to comp.* is likely to lose people > > who do a search, find the MS forums, and think > > that's all there is. If the group is only on gmane > > then won't it probably just end up being a small > > club of regulars? > > > > That's a "risk", yes. It is very important to propagate the to be new > place as broad as possible, eg. in this NG before it is shut dowwn. Yep - nothing is perfect here - but if we do nothing - or just wait too long with some "actions" - the whole thing can only get worse. Olaf
From: dpb on 7 May 2010 18:25 Ulrich Korndoerfer wrote: > Hi, > > dpb schrieb: >> Ulrich Korndoerfer wrote: >>> >> .... >> >>> That's a "risk", yes. It is very important to propagate the to be new >>> place as broad as possible, eg. in this NG before it is shut dowwn. >> >> MS pulling the plug on their server array isn't going to shut down >> anything except their servers...the group name is already on about a >> zillion mirrored nntp servers already so what's the point? Just go to >> another server if/when MS does remove nntp access and "keep on truckin'". >> > > AFAIK if the primary server/ the host goes away, you no longer can post > to the groups it hosted. Where should the mirrors send the posts to? It > might be possible (as long as the mirrors do not remove them) to *read* > old posts, but not to post new ones, when MS shuts the host down. Why would that be as long as the server you're reading on allows posting? Usenet is "everybody's equal" -- there's no lead/primary/server/host; if that were the case then nobody could post anywhere if that particular server happened to be down and there would also have to be some mechanism by which the rest of usenet knew that. usenet is essentially nothing but a bunch of peers; each is its own repository of postings w/ its own retention period, etc. Where in RFC 977 do you see anything about there being such an arrangement? <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc977/rfc977> AFAIK the only thing would be if everybody at all the mirror sites also took access to the microsoft.* groups off. Possible but not probable imo. Since everybody is going to have to go to some other news server than Microsoft anyway when they pull the plug, why not wait until it's shown that there's a problem? As my Dad used to say when I was a little tyke--"Wait until you're hurt before you cry." --
From: Schmidt on 7 May 2010 18:46
"dpb" <none(a)non.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:hs243q$46u$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Usenet is "everybody's equal" -- there's no lead/primary/server/host; if > that were the case then nobody could post anywhere if that particular > server happened to be down and there would also have to be some > mechanism by which the rest of usenet knew that. usenet is essentially > nothing but a bunch of peers; each is its own repository of postings w/ > its own retention period, etc. > > Where in RFC 977 do you see anything about there being such an > arrangement? <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc977/rfc977> > > AFAIK the only thing would be if everybody at all the mirror sites also > took access to the microsoft.* groups off. Possible but not probable imo. It's a bit more complex, if we talk about usenet and not just NNTP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_message ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/microsoft/ |