So you didn't say "easy for you to say - you don't have to suffer this crap for years."
'course, if you'd LEARN HOW TO POST, it'd help.
So you didn't say "easy for you to say - you don't have to suffer this crap for years."
'course, if you'd LEARN HOW TO POST, it'd help.
Ignore them. That's what killfiles are for. Again, others have tried this same thing: we want to moderate our now unmoderated group because we don't like what two posters are doing.
Only in that Neil claims no one ever said it.
Then set up an invtation only group on a web board and be done with it.
So if he can. You can. If he can, others can. If the group is so important, you can figure out a way to read it. How hard is that?
Doesn't matter. This is USENet. You don't get to choose who reads or replies.
Doesn't matter. Most news admins will not change the moderation even if the B8mb were to vote in your favor. You will not get what you want if what you want is to change comp.cad.solidworks from unmoderated to moderated. Try wanting something else.
The group is? Heh. The group includes those who's posts you do not wish to read.
Tie your own hands? Heh.
Website. Not websight and misleading, not misdesigned.
Website. Not websight.
Since the "I agree"s all came from a slewed poll, it doesn't matter.
Here we go, another idiotic analogy.
Posting to USENet is not illegal.
Right. So you want to build a 10 foot high fence around said neighborhood with 8 foot wide holes all over the place. How's that for an analogy.
moved in and am
Trying to moderate an unmoderated newsgroup won't get you what you want.
Your analogy is invalid.
Sounds like that's what he's doing already.
Indeed.
====> and it's about as workable as moderation in place.
I'm guessing from the heat in your response that you've been subjected to a cancelbot gary. Is that the case?
I did say anything like this should be submitted to the ISP's involved to see what their reaction would be. Telling half truths is pretty much the same as lying isn't it Gary or do you have one standard for yourself and another for others. Context counts. In any event, I've never cancelled one of my own posts let alone anyone elses. Also, I stated earlier that it's my opinion that none of this will come to anything more than an educational excercise. In that light it's all good.
Don't get all twitchy. It isn't necessary. You want to do something useful go put a spammer out of business. That's a much bigger problem than trolling Usenet. My mail client has finally gotten back to being useful after SBC, in their infinite wisdom, migrated all of us Pacbell customers to their web base web hosting tools. It's pretty but it's also quite useless. They even disabled anonamous FTP access and I found that very useful as long as I paid attention to the permissions on the directory in use. It was also easy.
At this point I'm considering self hosting but that looks like a real headache.
Not Gary. Adam.
Ibid. C'mon, the first line tells you that.
Perhaps if you try harder, you can backpedal faster.
A cancelbot gary?
You are committing abuse by telling people to send third-party cancels.
1) Yes, issuing third-party cancels is a violation of TOS/AUP. It's a MAJOR VIOLATION and would get your ass booted off. 2) Merely ASKING about permission to issue third-party cancels would likely get one put on the ISP's shit list, if not booted off.John R. Carroll is a dangerous moron. DO NOT take his suggestions.
My name isn't Gary.
Isn't that special. The cowardice was assumed.
Passing along extremely bad advice in Usenet is never good.
I'll warn you this one time only. If you ever make a suggestion on Usenet again encouraging others to issue third-party cancels, I promise to have a chat with your News administrator.
LOL That's weird. I must have Burnore on the brain or something. My apologies to Gary.
John, you see my name there somewhere? No. Oh, and buy a box of commas, ok?
Proper quoting counts.
Yet you suggest it's an option.
Bullshit.
That's pretty much the norm now.
Since at most, they'd see you as posting twice, why would they?
Really! Why would you bother Cliff? Frankly, I wouldn't even know how to do so.
Objecting to Usenet is like complaining about diarrhea from Tijuana street Tacos. What was once usefull has become more that a little tedious.
No and I admitted my mistake.
Well, and I'm not going to belabor it, I was trying to make the point that either is useless. You are assuming facts and motivation not in evidence. I've been a CUG member since 1982 and none of this sort of crap would have been tolerated then and I can tell you it isn't now either.
Well it won't Gary but I think a lot has been learned by people that just didn't know, myself included. I might be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. Time will tell. Either way I don't really have anything invested and wasn't trying to pick a fight.
Dave,
People have been telling us it won't happen and giving reasons that didn't really seem to be getting to the root. I believe you just have, thank you.
Bottom line, there is no written policy and the board has set the unofficial bar to a near impossible level. So don't use Google, use a reader, filter out the noise yourself or leave.
Tom
It's in the RFC; syntax is straightforward. Some news readers generate the cancel themselves.
I'm sorry - I knew that but didn't make it sufficiently clear that for that one line only I was quoting him rather than you.
Someone (Gary Burnore? I don't remember for sure who) suggested that most commercial NSP's now allow you to make an NNTP connection over Port
80, so that those who can't access Usenet with a normal newsreader through the normal port would be able to access via Port 80.PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.