[Monty Parts]

It looks like it's all coming to a untimely end. Apparently not enough
people are using it, and a bunch that are are clogging the bandwidth
with 'stolen stuff'.

Now I'm not saying that people aren't schlepping software and movies
around...but this just reeks of the gubernment attempting to cut out one
more part of their citizens lives that they can't control.

But it also means another change in price to the now way less than free
web usage.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326848,00.asp

PN

[Richard Crowley]

"Monty Parts" wrote ...
It looks like it's all coming to a untimely end. Apparently not enough
people are using it, and a bunch that are are clogging the bandwidth
with 'stolen stuff'.

Now I'm not saying that people aren't schlepping software and movies
around...but this just reeks of the gubernment attempting to cut out one
more part of their citizens lives that they can't control.

But it also means another change in price to the now way less than free
web usage.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326848,00.asp

Usenet will only be better with the departure of fools like the
author of that piece. RIP indeed.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , Monty Parts wrote:
It looks like it's all coming to a untimely end. Apparently not enough
people are using it, and a bunch that are are clogging the bandwidth
with 'stolen stuff'.

Now I'm not saying that people aren't schlepping software and movies
around...but this just reeks of the gubernment attempting to cut out one
more part of their citizens lives that they can't control.

But it also means another change in price to the now way less than free
web usage.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326848,00.asp


I guess I'll be seeing all of you.

In my opinion, I get much of what I want to know through the Usenet Google database.
usenet is very efficient, and trying to logon and join every dam forum is a real PITA.
Usenet is just plain simple and direct, just like my newsreader. Except I can't spell.
They should have got rid of binaries long ago.

greg

[Geoff]

Monty Parts wrote:
It looks like it's all coming to a untimely end. Apparently not enough
people are using it, and a bunch that are are clogging the bandwidth
with 'stolen stuff'.

Now I'm not saying that people aren't schlepping software and movies
around...but this just reeks of the gubernment attempting to cut out
one more part of their citizens lives that they can't control.

But it also means another change in price to the now way less than
free web usage.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326848,00.asp

PN

I don't know how you extrapolate that opinion-piece into the 'end of
USENET'.

Decisions of some ISP to not carry NTTP servers or cache messages (or
binaries) is not quite the same thing. Even legislation for restriction of
filetypes cached or transmitted does not mean the End.

Are you suggesting that thhere will be some worldwide ban on NTTP protocal
traffic ? And whoever doing naughty things won't find an alternative
transport ?

geoff

[Geoff]

GregS wrote:

I guess I'll be seeing all of you.

In my opinion, I get much of what I want to know through the Usenet
Google database.
usenet is very efficient, and trying to logon and join every dam
forum is a real PITA. Usenet is just plain simple and direct, just
like my newsreader. Except I can't spell.
They should have got rid of binaries long ago.

The are plenty of legit uses for binaries groups, and sending the same data
via other protocols is not necessarily more efficient.

And who said that a.b..... is any less value to the world than crap on
YouTube, people streaming inane TV drivel, or the other low-rent content
that the internet has spawned ?

geoff

[jakdedert]

geoff wrote:
Monty Parts wrote:
It looks like it's all coming to a untimely end. Apparently not enough
people are using it, and a bunch that are are clogging the bandwidth
with 'stolen stuff'.

Now I'm not saying that people aren't schlepping software and movies
around...but this just reeks of the gubernment attempting to cut out
one more part of their citizens lives that they can't control.

But it also means another change in price to the now way less than
free web usage.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326848,00.asp

PN

I don't know how you extrapolate that opinion-piece into the 'end of
USENET'.

Decisions of some ISP to not carry NTTP servers or cache messages (or
binaries) is not quite the same thing. Even legislation for restriction of
filetypes cached or transmitted does not mean the End.

Are you suggesting that thhere will be some worldwide ban on NTTP protocal
traffic ? And whoever doing naughty things won't find an alternative
transport ?

geoff


While I think it's premature, it may very well be the end of usenet, as
more and more ISPs drop the service. Sure there are other providers,
but for myself, I'm probably not going pursue that avenue...attractive
as it may be. Having an extra bill to pay every month is not something
I relish; especially for something I now get for 'free'.

According to an administrator at BellSouths usenet farm, their traffic
dropped by 2/3 when they axed the alt.bin and alt.bain groups. Somebody
in the front office is bound to notice the change in their bottom line.
There is no downside. The drop in subscribers has to be more than
offset by the cost savings.

jak

[Richard Crowley]

"jakdedert" wrote ...
While I think it's premature, it may very well be the end of usenet, as
more and more ISPs drop the service. Sure there are other providers, but
for myself, I'm probably not going pursue that avenue...attractive as it
may be. Having an extra bill to pay every month is not something I
relish; especially for something I now get for 'free'.

10 Euro per year is "free" for all practical purposes.
individual.net (in Berlin) auto-debits my plastic once
a year and no hassles with "extra bills to pay every month".

[Geoff]

jakdedert wrote:
According to an administrator at BellSouths usenet farm, their traffic
dropped by 2/3 when they axed the alt.bin and alt.bain groups. Somebody in
the front office is bound to notice the change in their
bottom line. There is no downside. The drop in subscribers has to
be more than offset by the cost savings.

My ISP had the same theory wrt ferw users. But as there is actually no real
'cost' in running the service, apart from disk space and maybe some trafic,
just dropping the binaries would have been an all-round gain for everybody
(apart from binaries users - are they are NOT all crims or paedophiles).


geoff

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"geoff" wrote in message

Well there is plenty on the http WWW too - best close that down too ! And
paper printing.


NOT funny.


;-)

[Richard Crowley]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
There is no "flip of the coin" in the fact that binaries can be
filtered and terminated with ease. There was no qualifying
reason for the massive termination of some 35,000 legitimate
newsgroups in the "alt" hierarchy by virtually all major providers
across the USA.

350, I'd believe, maybe even 3500 at a stretch.
If they are THAT "legitimate" then let them get established
properly in the traditional hierarchy.

AOL and Google are as much to blame as anyone.
A congenital "defect" in the design of Usenet was that
nodes would be managed by conscientious individuals
with reasonable judgment. Enter the budget-skimping
big corporations, (and the scofflaw operators like
buzzardnews) and you see what happens.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message...

If they filter, the protection of the Good Samaritan Act is removed.


Binaries are filtered from this group, are they not ?

[jakdedert]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
There is no "flip of the coin" in the fact that binaries can be
filtered and terminated with ease. There was no qualifying
reason for the massive termination of some 35,000 legitimate
newsgroups in the "alt" hierarchy by virtually all major providers
across the USA.

350, I'd believe, maybe even 3500 at a stretch.
If they are THAT "legitimate" then let them get established
properly in the traditional hierarchy.

AOL and Google are as much to blame as anyone.
A congenital "defect" in the design of Usenet was that
nodes would be managed by conscientious individuals
with reasonable judgment. Enter the budget-skimping
big corporations, (and the scofflaw operators like
buzzardnews) and you see what happens.


It was 3000+ on AT&T. Two thirds of their traffic, according to the
(former) BellSouth admin who monitors the BellSouth usenet support group.

Just as worrisome:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-9994159-46.html

"The major national cable providers are all to sign a troubling yet
major censorship deal with a private anti-child porn organization. The
deal would give the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NCMEC) carte blanche power to issue a takedown of any customer's
content hosted on a cable provider's servers.

The group will provide each cable company with a list of Web site
addresses that they believe contain child porn. The cable companies will
then, per the agreement, scrub the content from their servers."


This is not government. They've taken an end-run around any due
process. This is a private organization--the same one behind the
alt.bin/alt.bain decision takedown--pressuring commercial entities to
control content. Once they decide *your* or *my* website is
objectionable, per the agreement, the ISP will simply make us disappear.
Since it's a private agreement, no law has been broken. No government
entity is involved. There is no recourse, no due process.

If it was just kiddie porn that was involved, it would be one thing.
But the AT&T action on usenet proves that they're willing to throw out
the baby along with the bathwater. MOST of the content blocked from
their servers had nothing to do with porn.

We can only vote with our pocketbooks; but they've been pretty thorough.
In many cases, they've tied up the only providers in large areas.

There's no place else to go...and it's just beginning.

jak

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message...

350, I'd believe, maybe even 3500 at a stretch.

My ISP listed 46,000 available newsgroups until a month ago.

If they are THAT "legitimate" then let them get established
properly in the traditional hierarchy.

Are you saying that the "alt" segment hasn't been around for
an equal period of time?

[jakdedert]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message...

If they filter, the protection of the Good Samaritan Act is removed.


Binaries are filtered from this group, are they not ?

In most cases, the only thing filtering binaries from any group is
convention. In fact, to prove the point, shortly after the AT&T
decision, I posted a few small binaries on text groups just to prove the
point. I have no doubt that if I attached a jpeg to this post, it would
appear on your computer.

For the most part, users themselves have policed the prohibition against it.

jak

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 03:20:18 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

In most cases, the only thing filtering binaries from any group is
convention. In fact, to prove the point, shortly after the AT&T
decision, I posted a few small binaries on text groups just to prove the
point. I have no doubt that if I attached a jpeg to this post, it would
appear on your computer.

A lot of servers see the lack of the binaries flag on a newsgroup as
an instruction to strip attachments. But let's not argue the point.
Try attaching a file, people can report whether it comes through.

I'll try attaching one to this message.

[Eeyore]

GregS wrote:

usenet is very efficient, and trying to logon and join every dam forum is a real PITA.
Usenet is just plain simple and direct, just like my newsreader. Except I can't spell.

100% agreed.


They should have got rid of binaries long ago.

Us electronics guys find it very useful to distribute schematics.

Graham

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , Eeyore wrote:


GregS wrote:

usenet is very efficient, and trying to logon and join every dam forum is a
real PITA.
Usenet is just plain simple and direct, just like my newsreader. Except I
can't spell.

100% agreed.


They should have got rid of binaries long ago.

Us electronics guys find it very useful to distribute schematics.

Graham


I have never used binaries. I have always uploaded stuff to some web space
and just reffered the URL. I have two providers offering free space
and right now I have 300 Gb on a paid site.

grge

[Scott Dorsey]

David Morgan \(MAMS\) /Odm wrote:

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message...

If they filter, the protection of the Good Samaritan Act is removed.

Binaries are filtered from this group, are they not ?

Depends on whether your ISP is competent or not, and how competent the
folks upstream are. My ISP dumps binaries and multiposted spam. Others
many not.

Posting binaries to a discussion group is very rude and any well-run
news server will dump them to keep their disk space demands under control.
But not all news servers are well-run.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

David Morgan \(MAMS\) /Odm wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message...

350, I'd believe, maybe even 3500 at a stretch.

My ISP listed 46,000 available newsgroups until a month ago.

If they are THAT "legitimate" then let them get established
properly in the traditional hierarchy.

Are you saying that the "alt" segment hasn't been around for
an equal period of time?

It hasn't. Altnet started up as an alternative to traditional Big Eight
Usenet by people who thought the requirements to create new groups were
excessively strict.

Consequently there are a LOT of alt. groups, and while it is easy to
create one, it is damn near impossible to get rid of one.

A lot of Usenet admins refused to carry altnet... many still do.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2008-08-01 kAzkk.793$wS4.593@trnddc03 said:
In most cases, the only thing filtering binaries from any group is
convention. In fact, to prove the point, shortly after the AT&T
decision, I posted a few small binaries on text groups just to
prove the point. I have no doubt that if I attached a jpeg to this
post, it would appear on your computer.
For the most part, users themselves have policed the prohibition
against it.
True enough, and self policing works, especially when one
has the weight of the actual administrators or authorities
behind them. FOr years we've had that weight.
WItness the twit kid a few years ago that posted jpegs of
Shania Twain with his messages in this group while he
insulted everybody here. WHen we told him to cease with the
binaries he reacted with anger and posted more binaries.
COmplaints flowed into shaw.ca and finally, byebye dumb kid.

SElf policing works as long as the authorities are
interested in following up. Same has happened in ham radio.
For years you could dial up the fcc monitoring centers if
somebody was egregiously violating rules and doing the
malicious interference bit. tHis was especially true if you
were working frequencies such as the maritime mobile service
network where emergency traffic was likely to appear. Iirc
you're a ham Jack, so you might recall the case of that
schoenbaum guy in the U.S virgin islands.
HE lost his license for the better part of a decade as he
fought his way through the appeals process and finally did
the "please please I won't do that anymore" bit to get it
back.

MOst of these large corporations won't mind the demise of
usenet, including the hierarchies other than the alt groups.
THey'd rather outsource any technical support to phone
drones in the third world and do nothing but sell bandwidth.
Losing nntp lightens their load and makes those who would
wish to limit free and open discourse very happy, a win win
situation for them.
IF newsadmins were really interested in the continued
viability of the system they'd route around google.



Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Richard Crowley]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message...
If they filter, the protection of the Good Samaritan Act is removed.

Binaries are filtered from this group, are they not ?

No. "Filtering" means selective transmission (or not)
of content, message by message. Or stripping parts
of messages (such as binary attachments) before
forwarding them.

This newsgroup (as 80% of Usenet newsgroups)
was chartered as text-only and our use of it is tacit
indication that we agree to the specifications.

Binary attachments have actually been tried in this
newsgroup before and *some* NNTP servers store
an forward the extra data. It is not automatically stripped
out in many (most?) cases. It relies on the good-faith
of users to control themselves and live within the rules.

Of course, if there was widespread abuse in a text-
only newsgroup, NNTP servers would just stop
carrying the abused newsgroup, and that would be
the ultimate "filtering".

Operators of NNTP servers must budget their
disk space for the number of newsgroups they
carry, the retention time, and the average volume
of traffic on the newsgroups. Abusing text-only
newsgroups with large attachments plays havoc
with this disk-space management. Unless the
NNTP server manager has some special interest
in a particular newsgroup, it is just one of thousands
that s/he must deal with and it is an easy decision
to just drop the abusive ones.

Some Usenet providers (such as individual.net)
don't carry binary newsgroups at all so they can
provide better coverage (both breadth and depth)
of the text-only newsgroups.

IMHO, in the modern context of the internet and
the WWW, binary newsgroups are obsolete hold-
overs from a pre-historic era. Most of them are
blatant abusers of intellectual property. Good
riddance to them.

[Richard Crowley]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message...

350, I'd believe, maybe even 3500 at a stretch.

My ISP listed 46,000 available newsgroups until a month ago.

You used the adjective "legitimate". Surely you are not
claiming that all "46,000" alt newsgroups are legitimate?
I'd wager that 10% would be a very generous estimate.
Half of them likely have nothing but junk (spam) content.

If they are THAT "legitimate" then let them get established
properly in the traditional hierarchy.

Are you saying that the "alt" segment hasn't been around for
an equal period of time?

No, it has not.

[Richard Crowley]

"Eeyore" wrote...
GregS wrote:
usenet is very efficient, and trying to logon and join every dam forum is
a real PITA.
Usenet is just plain simple and direct, just like my newsreader. Except I
can't spell.

100% agreed.

They should have got rid of binaries long ago.

Us electronics guys find it very useful to distribute schematics.

It was the only way back before the internet and WWW.
It is now an anachronistic holdover from an extinct era.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

I'll try attaching one to this message.

So, who got it? Richard?

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote...
I'll try attaching one to this message.

So, who got it? Richard?

Didn't come through on either of my NNTP services,
Supernews, or Individual.net

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:43:35 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote...
I'll try attaching one to this message.

So, who got it? Richard?

Didn't come through on either of my NNTP services,
Supernews, or Individual.net

OK. Did ANYONE get it?

[philicorda[_6_]]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:48:48 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:43:35 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote...
I'll try attaching one to this message.

So, who got it? Richard?

Didn't come through on either of my NNTP services, Supernews, or
Individual.net

OK. Did ANYONE get it?

It came through here. NTL/Virgin whatever servers. I believe they
subcontract their Usenet service to a company in the Americas at the
moment.

I wonder what the answer is meant to be to that question written on the
bus.

[[email protected]]

"Richard Crowley" wrote:

It was the only way back before the internet and WWW.
It is now an anachronistic holdover from an extinct era.


But then, why are you here?

I'm always impressed with lightweights who would deny others valuation of
something they themselves don't use.

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
It was the only way back before the internet and WWW.
It is now an anachronistic holdover from an extinct era.

But then, why are you here?

If by "here" you mean r.a.p, I am here for the chartered
function, text discussion of audio topics.

I'm always impressed with lightweights who would deny
others valuation of something they themselves don't use.

I think you have made a faulty assumption of what the topic
is, here. We were discussing whether *binary newsgroups*
are still necessary in the age of internet and WWW. r.a.p
is NOT a binary newsgroup (Mr. Payne's experiment
notwithstanding. :-)

Since you snipped the antecedent of "it", you lost the
context. I'm NOT impressed by lightweights who don't
bother to read the entire thread before spouting off.

I've been active on Usenet for 20 years. How long
have YOU been using it?

[Lucky[_3_]]

philicorda wrote:

I wonder what the answer is meant to be to that question written on the
bus.


"Yes, I'll give you your t-shirt later".

[Les Cargill]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote...
GregS wrote:
usenet is very efficient, and trying to logon and join every dam forum is
a real PITA.
Usenet is just plain simple and direct, just like my newsreader. Except I
can't spell.
100% agreed.

They should have got rid of binaries long ago.
Us electronics guys find it very useful to distribute schematics.

It was the only way back before the internet and WWW.
It is now an anachronistic holdover from an extinct era.




I've never used the binaries groups, but text posts age out.
Still, seems a reasonable way to transmit data - it doesn't
require contracting for server space. I'm not sure NNTP
would do for commercial purposes.

The WWW for discussion is completely lousy. Has no real
redeeming characteristics, IMO. NNTP based discussion is a
commons; web fora become somebody's fiefdom.

--
Les Cargill

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message ...


I'll try attaching one to this message.

So, who got it? Richard?


Nope..... no attachment here. (Verizon, Texas).

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Laurence Payne" wrote...

OK. Did ANYONE get it?


Filters are as active as ever.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message ...


Now THIS is odd.... what did you do differently this time?

Because it _did_ show up this time.

Hmmmmmmmm :-(

[Les Cargill]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:43:35 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote...
I'll try attaching one to this message.
So, who got it? Richard?
Didn't come through on either of my NNTP services,
Supernews, or Individual.net

OK. Did ANYONE get it?

Got it here - newshosting.com

--
Les Cargill

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message...

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message...

350, I'd believe, maybe even 3500 at a stretch.

My ISP listed 46,000 available newsgroups until a month ago.

You used the adjective "legitimate". Surely you are not
claiming that all "46,000" alt newsgroups are legitimate?
I'd wager that 10% would be a very generous estimate.
Half of them likely have nothing but junk (spam) content.

Or empty all together. Maybe that adjective was inappropriate,
but it certainly applies to thousands (possibly tens of thousands)
of groups in the "alt" hierarchy.

Yes... like Scott said... once the "alt" has been started, it's virtually
impossible to remove it. A high percentage of them are long since
abandoned since they were related to a specific subject or current
event.

If they are THAT "legitimate" then let them get established
properly in the traditional hierarchy.

Are you saying that the "alt" segment hasn't been around for
an equal period of time?

No, it has not.

It's still a dozen or more years old, is it not?

Why was it necessary to completely eliminate access ??

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:43:35 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote...
I'll try attaching one to this message.

So, who got it? Richard?

Didn't come through on either of my NNTP services,
Supernews, or Individual.net

OK. Did ANYONE get it?


Not if you injected it at giganews. They strip them, like a well-run
site should.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2008-08-01 said:
"Laurence Payne" wrote...
I'll try attaching one to this message.
So, who got it? Richard?
Didn't come through on either of my NNTP services,
Supernews, or Individual.net
IF those who did acknowledge they got it, it's just a way
for abusers to know which servers don't actively filter
binaries and utilize that information to further erode the
quality of text groups.
Hence, .... I won't say either way.



Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Richard Crowley]

"Les Cargill" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote...
GregS wrote:
usenet is very efficient, and trying to logon and join every dam forum
is a real PITA.
Usenet is just plain simple and direct, just like my newsreader. Except
I can't spell.
100% agreed.

They should have got rid of binaries long ago.
Us electronics guys find it very useful to distribute schematics.

It was the only way back before the internet and WWW.
It is now an anachronistic holdover from an extinct era.

I've never used the binaries groups,

I've downloaded a few things from binaries groups, but they
are clearly anachronistric in today's landscape.

but text posts age out.

All Usenet content "ages out" which is why DejaNews (and
now Google) operate an archive. Binary content ages out
much faster (sometimes hours vs. weeks or months for text)
because of the sheer volume vs. server capacity.

Still, seems a reasonable way to transmit data - it doesn't
require contracting for server space.

Sure it does. It just requires *different* contracting for
server space. Just because *you* don't have to contract
for the server space doesn't mean it just springs to life
by itself.

I'm not sure NNTP would do for commercial purposes.

Agreed. But for the kind of things Usenet is traditionally
used for, there are plenty of free web-based places to share
binary content that are much more straightforward and
convienent than breaking content up into a string of little
yyenc "messages".

The WWW for discussion is completely lousy. Has no real
redeeming characteristics, IMO. NNTP based discussion is a
commons; web fora become somebody's fiefdom.

It would be quite possible to make a web-based portal that
was as easy, simple and fast as traditional client newsreaders,
but there appears to be no incentive for anyone to do that.

[David F. Cox]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 03:20:18 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

In most cases, the only thing filtering binaries from any group is
convention. In fact, to prove the point, shortly after the AT&T
decision, I posted a few small binaries on text groups just to prove the
point. I have no doubt that if I attached a jpeg to this post, it would
appear on your computer.

A lot of servers see the lack of the binaries flag on a newsgroup as
an instruction to strip attachments. But let's not argue the point.
Try attaching a file, people can report whether it comes through.

I'll try attaching one to this message.

I am on virginmedia - it did not come through