Google Acquires Deja Usenet Archives
Jonathan Grobe
Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
Deja.com
Award-Winning Search Engine Launches Beta Version of Usenet Newsgroup
Search
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - February 12, 2001 - Google Inc. today
announced that is has acquired Deja.com's Usenet Discussion Service.
This acquisition provides Google with Deja's entire Usenet archive
(dating back to 1995), software, domain names including deja.com and
dejanews.com, company trademarks, and other intellectual property.
Financial terms of this transaction were not released.
Available now at http://groups.google.com, this powerful new Usenet
search feature enables Google users to access the wealth of
information contained in more than six months of Usenet newsgroup
postings and message threads. Once the full Deja Usenet archive is
added, users will be able to search and browse more than 500 million
archived messages with the speed and efficiency of a Google search. In
addition to expanding the amount of searchable data, Google will soon
provide improved browsing capabilities and newsgroup posting.
"We welcome Deja's loyal users into the growing community of Google
users worldwide," said Larry Page, Google CEO and co-founder. "With
more than 500 million individual messages and growing fast, Usenet and
its thriving community is one of the most active and valuable
information sources on the Internet."
"The acquisition of Deja's significant assets will enable Google to
offer an important new source of information to both Deja and Google
users," said Omid Kordestani, Google's vice president of business
development and sales. "We will continue to build and acquire the
necessary technologies to provide the best search experience to
millions of Google users worldwide."
The award-winning Google search engine serves 70 million searches per
day, with approximately half of these searches performed on the
company's homepage at http://www.google.com. Google offers a wide
variety of custom search service products and currently licenses its
search technology to more than 120 companies in 30 countries.
About Google Inc.
With the largest index of websites available on the World Wide Web and
the industry's most advanced search technology, Google Inc. delivers
the fastest and easiest way to find relevant information on the
Internet. Google's technological innovations have earned the company
numerous industry awards and citations, including two Webby Awards;
WIRED magazine's Reader Raves Award; Best Internet Innovation and
Technical Excellence Award from PC Magazine; Best Search Engine on the
Internet from Yahoo! Internet Life; Top Ten Best Cybertech from TIME
magazine; and Editor's Pick from CNET. A growing number of companies
worldwide, including Yahoo!, AOL/Netscape, and Cisco Systems, rely on
Google to power search on their websites. A privately held company
based in Mountain View, Calif., Google's investors include Kleiner
Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. More information about
Google can be found on the Google site at http://www.google.com.
###
Google is a trademark of Google Inc. All other company and product
names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they
are associated.
Google Contacts:
David Krane
650-930-3596
dkr...@google.com Cindy McCaffrey
(650) 930-3524
ci...@google.com
--
Jonathan Grobe
Peter B. Steiger
>[Any comment on this press release?]
>
>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
>Deja.com
So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing
(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the
date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).
I wish they'd leave the Deja search engine in place until the
Google engine is fully debugged. Bah!
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
----
If you reply by email, send it to pbs at com dot
canada (or vice-versa). All advertisements will be
returned to your postmaster, eh!
Jay Denebeim
Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>On 12 Feb 2001 19:15:03 GMT, Jonathan Grobe sez:
>>[Any comment on this press release?]
>>
>>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
>>Deja.com
>
>So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing
>(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the
>date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).
It looks like they've just fed the deja database into google's
software, try it like a web search. Just enter 'Steiger'.
Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search
engine.
IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought
them.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
Bert Hyman
<3a8840cd....@news.cheyne1.wy.home.com>:
>On 12 Feb 2001 19:15:03 GMT, Jonathan Grobe sez:
>>[Any comment on this press release?]
>>
>>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets
>>from Deja.com
>
>So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing
>(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the
>date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).
Try the "Advanced Search" page
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search, where you'll find fields
for Newsgroup and Author.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com
KalElFan
grobe...@netins.net (Jonathan Grobe) writes:
>[Any comment on this press release?]
Typo in the fifth word!
The search by date is also offline in their Beta version.
Adam H. Kerman
Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote:
>Peter B. Steiger wrote:
>>So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing
>>(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the
>>date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).
>Try the "Advanced Search" page
>http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search, where you'll find fields
>for Newsgroup and Author.
That appears to be what he was using. He's correct; searching by date range
is unavailable.
Ron Natalie
Jay Denebeim wrote:
> Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search
> engine.
>
> IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought
> them.
I'm not. What a bunch of megloamaical bastards. They're not even
honoring X-No-Archive. You get 157,000 hits if you search for on
x-no-archive.
Bert Hyman
<BgYh6.116310$P5.26...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>:
>That appears to be what he was using. He's correct; searching by date
>range is unavailable.
>
and no Message-ID search either. I tried the search by Author on myself
and it did work.
I sent a nice (I hope) note to Google, thanking them for adopting
DejaNews, but suggesting that they restore the missing functions, and
make the output less verbose.
Aahz Maruch
>
>[Any comment on this press release?]
It's about the best possible news, overall. I expect there'll be some
bobbles and growing pains, but I can't imagine any company that
could/would do a better job and all too many that would do far, far
worse.
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2001 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
'Gender' isn't a definition, it's a heuristic. --Aahz
Rob Kelk
Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
honour an experimental header?
Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my* view
- not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a public
forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the poster in
the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a header that
isn't defined in the RFCs.
--
Rob Kelk Personal address: rob...@ottawa.com
Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.
Ron Natalie
Rob Kelk wrote:
>
> Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
> honour an experimental header?
Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means
to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the archiving
of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know what the intent
of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the DMCA.
>
> Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my* view
> - not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a public
> forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the poster in
> the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a header that
> isn't defined in the RFCs.
Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
Rob Kelk
>
> Rob Kelk wrote:
>
> >
> > Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
> > honour an experimental header?
>
> Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means
> to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the archiving
> of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know what the intent
> of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the DMCA.
Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I
haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.
And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?
<snip>
Ron Natalie
Rob Kelk wrote:
> Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I
> haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.
Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's a change to our copyright law to
make things more amenable to the database providers (of which GOOGLE is
one of the beneficiaries). Since I'm in the US, and GOOGLE is in the
US (California), it's directly applicable to their infringement of my
copyrgihts.
>
> And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?
>
It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
Since this is a specifically actionalble (i.e., can sue for $$$) part of
the act, I wonder how long it's going to take someone to take a pot shot
at them.
Jan Schaumann
And all these hits have what in common? The words "x-no-archive" in the
/Subject/ or the /Body/ of the message.
Also:
+--from http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html --
|
| 10.I do not want you to archive my article(s)! How can I remove articles
| that I've posted from Google's archive?
|
| We are sympathetic to those who would like for their
| previous Usenet postings to no longer show up on Google
| Groups. Google supports the 'X-No-archive: yes' header,
| and we will not archive any newly posted articles that
| contain this text in the header. A request to remove
| articles that do not have this header is known in the
| industry as a "nuke" request; Google is not in a
| position to automatically remove such posts in this beta
| version.
|
| It is Google's policy to respond to notices of alleged
| infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium
| Copyright Act in an appropriate manner under such Act
| and other applicable intellectual property laws,
| including the removal or disabling of access to material
| claimed to be the subject of infringing activity. For
| more information, see our Terms of Service.
|
| 11.Why are old posts that I nuked showing up when I search for
| them on Google?
|
| Google's current usenet search includes postings from
| August 2000 onward that have been archived by Google. As
| soon as possible, Google will use the information
| contained in the Deja archive to begin honoring nuke
| requests made by Deja users.
|
+-------------------------------------------------------
AND:
UCMA is *US* law - the internet != US.
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
I want this V-Chip out of me! It has stunted my vocabulary.
I R A Darth Aggie
<slrn98gdhm.s...@worf.netins.net> wrote:
+ [Any comment on this press release?]
+
+ Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
+ Deja.com
Yeah, Deja might become useful again...
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
I R A Darth Aggie
Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com>, in
<3A885C49...@ottawa.com> wrote:
+ Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote:
+ > Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means
+ > to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the archiving
+ > of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know what the intent
+ > of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the DMCA.
+ Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I
+ haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.
Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a mass-media end-round on 20+ years
of Fair Use bought and paid for by RIAA and MPAA (recording and motion
picture associations, respectively). With any luck, it should be ruled
unconstitutional by the end of the year...
+ And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?
One would think so, but when as that stopped a lawyer?
Ron Natalie
> AND:
> UCMA is *US* law - the internet != US.
Yes, but Google is a US corporation, and the illegal activity is taking
place in the US, so it is subject to the law.
Ron Natalie
"J.J. Pearce" wrote:
>
>
> I see a /lot/ of people (newbies, mostly) putting 'X-No-archive' in
> the body of their posts, rather than making it a real header. TTBOMK,
> this just doesn't work and could account for many of the results in
> Ron's search...
>
Worked fine for DEJA until GOOGLE got ahold of them. DEJA recognized
that many posters were using lame versions of the news composers (like
NETSCAPE) that wouldn't insert the header line.
Taki Kogoma
to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet decree...
IIRC, if "X-No-Archive: yes" was the *first* line in the article body,
deja would honor it.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Jan Schaumann
doesn't matter. If it's not a header it shouldn't be treated like one. That's
just like Outlook Express pretending that
begin something.txt
is an attachment
end
when it's not.
If the words "x-no-archive" appear in the body or the subject, a search on
these words should certainly reveal them and it would be rude to simply assume
that it's a header.
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
Hermes: "The poor demented honky."
Rob Kelk
Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from now. Thanks.
Russ Allbery
> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it
> meant and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to
> violate it.
You're attributing to malice what may well be adequately explained by
immediately post-acquisition chaos. Getting this detail right before they
said anything would have been nice, but you don't know what sorts of time
constraints they may have been under to do *something* and I find it
unlikely that making the whole archive disappear until they sorted out
that detail would have been viable from the marketing standpoint.
Assuming that they were even aware of it as an issue; who knows what
information they got from Deja.
I'd recommend not getting too upset about anything until after a month or
so to let things settle down.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
BarB
However the posts do seem to be arranged by descending date. There is
one feature I think we are going to find useful and that is that each
group of posts are on a numbered page that can be accessed in any order.
It is instantly possible to see how many posts are available without
clicking "next messages" time after time as we did with Deja. Once they
make selection by date range possible, I think I'm going to like that.
As I understand it, what we are seeing now is the data base Google has
been developing on its own since last August. They have yet to integrate
the Deja archives. Lets give them some time.
One problem I've found so far, you can search a hierarchy but only with
a wild card at the end, alt.music.*, but not *.music.*, and I haven't
found a way to combine and search several hierarchies or groups at once
as alt.config OR news.groups.
BarB
Sylvan Butler
>Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's a change to our copyright law to
>make things more amenable to the database providers (of which GOOGLE is
>one of the beneficiaries). Since I'm in the US, and GOOGLE is in the
>US (California), it's directly applicable to their infringement of my
>copyrgihts.
Hmm. Where is your post with x-no-archive in the headers archived by
google since they agreed to honor that header?
Did you read the hits turned up by your search on why x-no-archive
doesn't work?
sdb
--
| Sylvan Butler | Not speaking for Hewlett-Packard | sbutler-boi.hp.com |
| Watch out for my e-mail address. Thank UCE. #### change ^ to @ #### |
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
"Don't Tread On Me!"
Damian
>to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the
>archiving of the message.
Utter bull. When you post to Usenet you implicitly agree that you are
speaking in a public forum. If you didn't give anyone permission to
archive your message it wouldn't appear on Usenet _period_. Are you
going to give each and every server on Usenet your message is distributed
to permission individually? Did you give Skycache permission? Did you
give Usenetserver permission? Of course not. What are they doing that's
different from Deja? Holding on to it longer? Hell, Giganews has 3
months of text retention. What's the line between long retention and an
archive? Who decides that? You? Each poster? Fine, Deja isn't an
archive, it's a news server with really long retention. End of
discussion.
>Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
>law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
Are you a lawyer? I didn't think so.
--
-Damian
E-Mail address is valid
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
> I wish they'd leave the Deja search engine in place until the
> Google engine is fully debugged. Bah!
I concur. Deja's search engine was better, the display of matching articles
was better and the speed was always fine (as far as I've seen)--not that
Google is a slouch on speed, but if it's not broken... I also liked how one
could retreive the text version of an article (just the article, no markup).
Finally, I liked how one could retreive an article given its message-ID. I
wish they had kept the old interface and search engine around until they
were ready to go with their new stuff. I hope their new database allows
these features too.
JayDee
Grobe) wrote:
>[Any comment on this press release?]
just don't dump the Deja Classic option...
JayDee
wrote:
>Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
>law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
talk to the investors re. these details
meanwhile, the world is watching...
I like that
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
wrote:
>... As I understand it, what we are seeing now is the data base Google has
>been developing on its own since last August. They have yet to integrate
>the Deja archives. Let's give them some time.
Agreed.
I'm thrilled that Google has taken over the project. Deja's search
engine has been restricted in scope (and buggy) for the last year
or so. I think Google's gonna do OK.
Marty
Vincent Lefevre
Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
> law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
I disagree. BTW, I hope you won't sue me because I quoted a part of
your article. :)
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vin...@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> - 100%
validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des
Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc.
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA
Christopher Jahn
There is no legal requirement for anyone to honor "x-no-
archive"; it was developed by DejaNews as a courtesy, and google
is under no obligation to honor it, although I expect that as
they are flooded by complaints, they will.
I've never understood the "x-no-archive" mentality; you make
public comments, they are part of the public record. You don't
want to be in the public record, then don't speak in public.
Having said that, I did force RemarQ to filter out my posts when
they started ad-linking. But I made THEM figure it out; I was
specifically denying them the right to link my words to product
endorsements; I was not interested in getting "off-record".
Of course, they didn't do it until I billed them; then they
dropped me right off their servers.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
All suspects are innocent until proven Discordian in a Court of
Chaos.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Adam Bailey
That doesn't necessarily mean anything. Do the same search with
Deja.com (if possible), and you'll see just how many people mis-type
it or put it in the wrong place.
I really should trim the Newsgroups header, but I'm too lazy.
--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
ad...@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP
ada...@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/
Peter B. Steiger
>One problem I've found so far, you can search a hierarchy but only with
>a wild card at the end, alt.music.*, but not *.music.*, and I haven't
>found a way to combine and search several hierarchies or groups at once
>as alt.config OR news.groups.
Yeah, I would dearly love regexp-style string matching! And (with
regards to their search engine in general) they need to clean up the
"exact phrase" option so you can search for multiple phrases; as it
is now if you put multiple phrases in, even separated by quotes,
it regards the whole mess as one long continuous string - thus
if you want a document that contains the exact phrase "Ronald
Reagan" AND the exact phrase "Bedtime for Bonzo", you're
outta luck.
Support for the NEAR operator would be nice, too, but now I'm
just asking them to steal ideas from Altavista.
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
----
If you reply by email, send it to pbs at com dot
canada (or vice-versa). All advertisements will be
returned to your postmaster, eh!
Stepper
Yeah its currently CRUDDY, looking and working. I think google
got more than they bargained for. Dejanews was not just the database
but the nice way it was set up. I hope Google makes it about as good
again. I just jumped on their today to do a search and found it out = (
On 12 Feb 2001 20:12:16 GMT, Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote:
>In article <3a8840cd....@news.cheyne1.wy.home.com>,
>Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>>On 12 Feb 2001 19:15:03 GMT, Jonathan Grobe sez:
>>>[Any comment on this press release?]
>>>
>>>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
>>>Deja.com
>>
>>So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing
>>(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the
>>date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).
>
>It looks like they've just fed the deja database into google's
>software, try it like a web search. Just enter 'Steiger'.
>
>Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search
>engine.
>
>IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought
>them.
>
>Jay
>--
>* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
>* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
>* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
>* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
Kjetil Torgrim Homme
> Yeah its currently CRUDDY, looking and working. I think google got
> more than they bargained for. Dejanews was not just the database
> but the nice way it was set up. I hope Google makes it about as
> good again. I just jumped on their today to do a search and found
> it out = (
CRUDDY?! It's already a _great_ improvement over the old Deja user
interface, even with Jeremy Nixon's frontend. It's much more
efficient to use. The short context is very helpful. The
presentation of threads is a bit lacking, though, there ought to be a
table of contents presented as a tree at the top.
(I don't care about the newsreader service, just the searching.)
Kjetil T.
Alex Vinokur
[snip]
> Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
> Deja.com
[snip]
Here is a result of this action.
My messages to newsgroups via Deja have gone.
For instance,
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=457509848
How can I see my old messages?
Have they be lost ???
Thanks in advance.
Alex Vinokur
--
Posted from scopus.co.il [194.90.203.130]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Boomer
Try at:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
--
The Best Things In Life Are Free!
Search with the best: http://www.google.com/
Kai Henningsen
> I concur. Deja's search engine was better,
Except ithad this nasty habit of being broken. It didn't find everything
that matched the query, and it found lots of stuff that didn't match the
query. I've yet to see Google do that - the worst is when a Web page has
changed in the mean time (but Google still shows the old version, of
course), something that's not likely to happen with Usenet!
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Kai Henningsen
> Yeah its currently CRUDDY, looking and working. I think google
> got more than they bargained for. Dejanews was not just the database
> but the nice way it was set up. I hope Google makes it about as good
> again. I just jumped on their today to do a search and found it out = (
Deja? Nice way it was set up?
Oh boy. Pull the other one, it's got bells on!
Zonky
>
>
>Rob Kelk wrote:
>
>>
>> Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
>> honour an experimental header?
>
>Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means
>to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the
>archiving of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know
>what the intent of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the
>DMCA.
>
>>
>> Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my*
>> view - not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a
>> public forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the
>> poster in the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a
>> header that isn't defined in the RFCs.
>
>Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
>law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
I hardly see how. You're posting to Usenet, and every server will have a
different article hold time. From an hour to well, infinite. I don't see
Google cannot hold their articles for a time they choose?
--
Please remove my_pants when replying.
Martijn van Buul
[ X-No-Archive ]
> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
> and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
Deja archived them after all..
--
Martijn van Buul - Pi...@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
Geek code: G-- - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
Kees J. Bot: The sum of CPU power and user brain power is a constant.
Johan M. Olofsson
Rob Kelk wrote:
>> Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
>> honour an experimental header?
>>
>> Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my*
>> view - not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a
>> public forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the
>> poster in the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a
>> header that isn't defined in the RFCs.
> Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
> law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
It is not _that_ simple.
Usenet covers several countries, with different laws, and different degree
of intended enforcement of their laws in this respect.
Hence it's (in my opinion) more of a question for Usenet as such than for
the judicial authorities of some or another country.
Just to give an EU-example, follow the two links from
http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/archive/index.html
/Johan Olofsson
Martijn van Buul
> CRUDDY?! It's already a _great_ improvement over the old Deja user
> interface, even with Jeremy Nixon's frontend. It's much more
> efficient to use.
Hmm. I really miss Deja's backdoor for requesting an article in
"original Usenet format" using a single URL. (it used to be
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/msgid.xp?MID=%3CMessageID%3E\&fmt=text
)
Kind of breaks my "Article not found, ask Deja?" script in slrn.
piranha
> In article <slrn98gdhm.s...@worf.netins.net>, Jonathan Grobe <> wrote:
> >
> >[Any comment on this press release?]
>
umm. IMO the best possible news would have been the demise of the
deja archive. byebye. usenet back to being ephemeral, not half-
assedly archived, with posts missing left and right (as in, if
there is a permanent archive, then a full archive; screw the badly
named x-no-archive header; do that right or don't do it).
that said, since i don't get my wish:
> I expect there'll be some bobbles and growing pains,
leaving the deja engine in place until they've migrated would've
been better to begin with.
> but I can't imagine any company that
> could/would do a better job and all too many that would do far, far
> worse.
here i agree.
--
-piranha
Peter da Silva
Martijn van Buul <pino+news_sof...@dohd.org> wrote:
>It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
>> and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
>Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
>of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
>Deja archived them after all..
That's what was bothering me. Are y'all sure that Deja's DB is actually in use
yet?
It's X-No-Archive, after all, not X-No-Display.
And apparently they didn't really nuke articles when asked, either, they
just hid them.
--
Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC. WWFD?
"Be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept"
-- Matthew 10:16 (l.trans)
Paul Bolchover
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn98i3f4.kgj.pino+...@mud.stack.nl>,
>Martijn van Buul <pino+news_sof...@dohd.org> wrote:
>>It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
>>> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
>>> and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
>
>>Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
>>of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
>>Deja archived them after all..
>
>That's what was bothering me. Are y'all sure that Deja's DB is actually in use
>yet?
>
>It's X-No-Archive, after all, not X-No-Display.
>
>And apparently they didn't really nuke articles when asked, either, they
>just hid them.
Someone mentioned elsewhere in this thread that it's likely that the current
interface is to Google's own archive of usenet posts, and they haven't
got round to incorporating the Deja archive yet - when they do so, they'll
obviously get rid of the nuked articles...
Paul Bolchover
Peter da Silva
Christopher Jahn <xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Having said that, I did force RemarQ to filter out my posts when
>they started ad-linking. But I made THEM figure it out; I was
>specifically denying them the right to link my words to product
>endorsements; I was not interested in getting "off-record".
>
>Of course, they didn't do it until I billed them; then they
>dropped me right off their servers.
Did you do the same thing to Altavista and everyone else who put
ads on search results?
Dave Korn
>>law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
>
>I hardly see how. You're posting to Usenet, and every server will have a
>different article hold time. From an hour to well, infinite. I don't see
>Google cannot hold their articles for a time they choose?
Good point. I wonder if you might be able to make a case that if XNA was
used *in conjunction* with an Expires: header, that to retain the article
beyond that point was a clear breach of copyright?
DaveK
--
They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at
Columbus. But remember, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Dave Korn
>In news.groups, Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it
>> meant and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to
>> violate it.
>
>immediately post-acquisition chaos.
>Assuming that they were even aware of it as an issue; who knows what
>information they got from Deja.
Interesting point. If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them out
from the search interface, that probably puts them in the clear in terms of
copyright, since they aren't republishing them. But if they claim to truly
respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have been entered into their database in
the first place.
>I'd recommend not getting too upset about anything until after a month or
>so to let things settle down.
Wise words, as ever. After all, it's not Google's fault that Deja filled
up the database with stuff that shouldn't have been there, and presumably
they could get it all removed and rebuild the indexes, but it's bound to
take some time.
Johan M. Olofsson
wrote in news.groups:
>Hmm. I really miss Deja's backdoor for requesting an article in
>"original Usenet format" using a single URL.
>(it used to be
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/msgid.xp?MID=%3CMessageID%3E\&fmt=text
>)
>
>Kind of breaks my "Article not found, ask Deja?" script in slrn.
>
And in slrn-clones, as for instance Xnews.
Ron Natalie
Martijn van Buul wrote:
>
> It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
>
> [ X-No-Archive ]
>
> > It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
> > and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
>
> Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
> of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
> Deja archived them after all..
>
No, the stuff at GOOGLE now is not the contents of the DEJA archives, but
something they seem to have collected on thier own.
Ron Natalie
"Johan M. Olofsson" wrote:
>
>
>
> Usenet covers several countries, with different laws, and different degree
> of intended enforcement of their laws in this respect.
Google is in California. I'm in Virginia. WHile various international jurisdictions
may apply to the USENET as a whole, the subject abuse is clearly subject to
US federal law.
Jay Denebeim
Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> wrote:
>But if they claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have
>been entered into their database in the first place.
Given that xna was made up by deja in the first place I can't see how
you can expect google to do more than deja did. Deja always stored
everything and only returned the ones not xnaed.
Russ Allbery
> Hmm. I really miss Deja's backdoor for requesting an article in
> "original Usenet format" using a single URL. (it used to be
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/msgid.xp?MID=%3CMessageID%3E\&fmt=text)
> Kind of breaks my "Article not found, ask Deja?" script in slrn.
Message ID search I'm quite sure is coming back. I don't know what the
presentation style of the results will be, though.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Jay Denebeim
Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> wrote:
> Good point. I wonder if you might be able to make a case that if XNA was
>used *in conjunction* with an Expires: header, that to retain the article
>beyond that point was a clear breach of copyright?
Nope. The expires header is defined as being a suggestion. Usenet
design from day one was that sites could hold onto news as long or as
short as they want.
Russ Allbery
> Interesting point. If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them
> out from the search interface, that probably puts them in the clear in
> terms of copyright, since they aren't republishing them. But if they
> claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have been entered into
> their database in the first place.
However, Deja always did the former and not the latter, or at least that's
what I've heard from multiple sources for quite some time.
William December Starr
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> said:
> I'm thrilled that Google has taken over the project. Deja's search
> engine has been restricted in scope (and buggy) for the last year or
> so. I think Google's gonna do OK.
Arguably, though, they should have waited until they _were_ doing OK
before going public. (Mind you, I have zero knowledge of what was going
on behind the scenes.) I miss Deja's search engine -- to which I'd had
my own cobbled-together front end -- and results format simply because
they're what I was used to... familiarity can breed comfort, after all,
no matter how objectively clunky a product may be. I have to wonder why
Google didn't acquire all that from Deja too and continue to make it
available as a "Classic" option.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Jan Schaumann
> In news.groups, Martijn van Buul <pino+news_sof...@dohd.org> writes:
>
> > Hmm. I really miss Deja's backdoor for requesting an article in
> > "original Usenet format" using a single URL. (it used to be
> > http://www.deja.com/=dnc/msgid.xp?MID=%3CMessageID%3E\&fmt=text)
>
> > Kind of breaks my "Article not found, ask Deja?" script in slrn.
>
> Message ID search I'm quite sure is coming back. I don't know what the
> presentation style of the results will be, though.
Whatever it is, I'm sure it should be not too hard to parse it through a
perlscript and present it to slrn in a proper fashion - something for
the slrn-folks to put on the long-time TODO? (fup2 nsr for this
qeustion)
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
%make love
Make: Don't know how to make love. Stop.
Damian
<96b7n5$uja$1...@citadel.in.taronga.com>:
>Did you do the same thing to Altavista and everyone else who put
>ads on search results?
Altavista presents the ads separately, as banners. Nothing wrong with
that. What was wrong about what Deja did was link words you had written
in your post to external sites, making it seem as though you had included
those links in your post. It was deceptive and unethical. I have no
problem with Deja's archive, but I have problems with them altering
posts.
--
-Damian
E-Mail address is valid
Charles Lindsey
>Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
>honour an experimental header?
The upcoming revision of RFC 1036 will make such a header official (But it
will be "Archive: no" rather than X-No-Archive: yes).
>Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my* view
>- not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a public
>forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the poster in
>the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a header that
>isn't defined in the RFCs.
There can be no legal compulsion to observe the header. Deja only honoured
it because people lent on them to do so. That established the precedent,
and I think most players now claim to honour it.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 436 6131 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Peter da Silva
Christopher Biow
>* Ron Natalie wrote:
>> "J.J. Pearce" wrote:
>> > I see a /lot/ of people (newbies, mostly) putting 'X-No-archive' in
>> > the body of their posts, rather than making it a real header.
>> Worked fine for DEJA until GOOGLE got ahold of them.
>doesn't matter. If it's not a header it shouldn't be treated like one.
Deja had a convention that they would accept 'X-No-archive' in the first
line of body text, as a means for accomodating newsreaders which did not
allow customer headers. Their header, their service, their choice on how to
implement it.
I would like to see Google respect Deja's standards for XNA.
Jay Denebeim
>>What was wrong about what Deja did was link words you had written in
>>your post to external sites, making it seem as though you had
>>included those links in your post.
>I don't recall Deja doing that.
They did, briefly. The amazing thing was this happened long after
Remarq was beaten to a pulp for doing exactly the same thing.
Rich Lafferty
piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote:
>
> leaving the deja engine in place until they've migrated would've
> been better to begin with.
I've seen this suggestion in a lot of places. Google didn't buy
*hardware* from Deja, though, and certainly didn't buy administrative
staff; I can't imagine any way in which Unix-based Google could have
run Deja's old NT-based front end without taking a considerable loss,
not to mention significant training and migration problems.
-Rich
--
Rich Lafferty ----------------------------------------
Nocturnal Aviation Division, IITS Computing Services
Concordia University, Montreal, QC
ri...@bofh.concordia.ca -------------------------------
Rich Lafferty
>
> >Altavista presents the ads separately, as banners. Nothing wrong with
> >that. What was wrong about what Deja did was link words you had written
> >in your post to external sites, making it seem as though you had included
> >those links in your post. It was deceptive and unethical. I have no
> >problem with Deja's archive, but I have problems with them altering
> >posts.
>
> I don't recall Deja doing that.
I do! I do! It was the best reason yet to misple Micro$oft with the $.
They might have stopped before they folded, though. It struck me at
the time as a particularly slimy and thus last-chance grab at a buck.
Dave Korn
>In article <vJ9i6.159$yi4.1...@newsr1.u-net.net>,
>Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> wrote:
>
>>But if they claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have
>>been entered into their database in the first place.
>
>Given that xna was made up by deja in the first place I can't see how
>you can expect google to do more than deja did.
Hi Jay,
Not quite sure how you read that into my words, particularly the bit where
I said
>>After all, it's not Google's fault that Deja filled
>>up the database with stuff that shouldn't have been there
which should have made it clear it was Deja's behaviour I was objecting to,
and then you say
> Deja always stored
>everything and only returned the ones not xnaed.
which was kind of the point that I was making, in the sentence
>>If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them out
>>from the search interface
So really the only comment I can add at this point is that I should have
perhaps said
"But if they claim to truly respect XNA, and to respect the spirit of XNA
rather than merely the letter of the law..."
Is that clearer? That I feel that they should have actually not archived
XNA posts, and that XNA is a misnomer if what it meant (to the people who
invented it) was actually "Do archive but don't republish".
Dave Korn
[snip]
> Deja's old NT-based front end
So that's why it was so slow and clunky.
Taki Kogoma
to news.groups decree...
>In article <Xns90477AB99A65Dda...@64.152.100.92>,
>Damian <zag2zfbv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote in
>><96b7n5$uja$1...@citadel.in.taronga.com>:
>>>Did you do the same thing to Altavista and everyone else who put
>>>ads on search results?
>
>>Altavista presents the ads separately, as banners. Nothing wrong with
>>that. What was wrong about what Deja did was link words you had written
>>in your post to external sites, making it seem as though you had included
>>those links in your post. It was deceptive and unethical. I have no
>>problem with Deja's archive, but I have problems with them altering
>>posts.
>
>I don't recall Deja doing that.
IIRC, deja did experiment with such links last August/September and
were sufficiently startled by the outcry to "suspend the program while
we reconsider the methodology."
Too bad they weren't paying attention to what happened when remarq tried
the same stunt last Feb/March.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Ken Arromdee
containing common words. You can't do it. To search for anything that
contains a common word, you need to put a + in front of the common word.
But if you try this in a phrase, it doesn't search for the phrase as a
phrase. I did a search for "if +I were +an evil overlord" and it gave me
pages that includes the *separate* phrases "evil overlord" and "if" and "I"
and "were" and "an".
--
Ken Arromdee / arro...@rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"Eventually all companies are replaced." --Bill Gates, October 1999
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
Starr) wrote:
>... Arguably, though, they should have waited until they _were_ doing OK
>before going public. (Mind you, I have zero knowledge of what was going
>on behind the scenes.)
Life is a series of tradeoffs. I also have zero knowledge of what
went into their decision. But in view of deja's inability to keep all
of their own archives online, google looks (to me) like a big
step up.
> I miss Deja's search engine -- to which I'd had
>my own cobbled-together front end -- and results format simply because
>they're what I was used to... familiarity can breed comfort, after all, ...
I have a preset search box on my RC home page that now is useless.
I doubt very much that google's programmers intend to provide less
service than deja did. Deja wasn't so hot when it got started
(1995?). And even though I got used to its new interfaces as they
came down the pike, I hated the final winnowing that had to take
place by hand-searching screen after screen of results that
only allowed me to see the screen before and the screen after.
I'm gonna bet everything I had invested in deja that five years
from now, google'll be good.
>... I have to wonder why
>Google didn't acquire all that from Deja too and continue to make it
>available as a "Classic" option.
Pride? Marketing? Spaghetti code? A vision thing?
Marty
Bert Hyman
>
>I'm not. What a bunch of megloamaical bastards. They're not even
>honoring X-No-Archive. ...
They say that they do.
From http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html:
We are sympathetic to those who would like for their previous
Usenet postings to no longer show up on Google Groups. Google
supports the 'X-No-archive: yes' header, and we will not
archive any newly posted articles that contain this text in
the header.
I don't know what they mean by "newly posted articles" though.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com
Thomas. Stephenson
>One problem with Google's search is a bug in the way it searches for
>phrases containing common words. You can't do it. To search for anything
>that contains a common word, you need to put a + in front of the common
>word. But if you try this in a phrase, it doesn't search for the phrase as
>a phrase. I did a search for "if +I were +an evil overlord" and it gave
>me pages that includes the *separate* phrases "evil overlord" and "if" and
>"I" and "were" and "an".
Strange, I did an advanced search as a phrase on "if I were an evil
overlord" and got nothing but matches.
--
Thomas R. Stephenson, CPL
Member Pegasus Mail Support Team
Russ Allbery
> They say that they do.
> From http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html:
> We are sympathetic to those who would like for their previous
> Usenet postings to no longer show up on Google Groups. Google
> supports the 'X-No-archive: yes' header, and we will not
> archive any newly posted articles that contain this text in
> the header.
> I don't know what they mean by "newly posted articles" though.
My guess: It means that they're honoring it for all newly received
messages, but they haven't had a chance to clean their old database yet.
Jan Schaumann
So if google decided that it's also proper to leave an empty
subject-line and instead specify the subject in the first (ok, second,
since the first is already reserved for your x-no-archive-thingy)
line(s), you'd think it'd be a good idea?
No? what if everybody and his brother started posting like that, would
it be a good idea then? What about other, random headers - why not make
the body of a message look something like that:
----
X-No-Archive: yes
Subject: Foobar
From: "xyz" <x...@invalid.com>
Newsgroups: groups.google
text goes here...
----
Oh, wait a second, we already have that. There are headers and there's a
body. a header has *nothing* to do in the body. Period.
What if there are two headers - one given by the agent, properly, in the
headers (X-No-archive: yes), and one given in the body by some stupid
newbie (X-No_Archive: no). Now what?
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
"To make a bad day worse, spend it wishing for the impossible." -Calvin
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
decision, not Google?
Johan M. Olofsson wrote:
> Usenet covers several countries, with different laws, and different degree
> of intended enforcement of their laws in this respect.
I would find it quite odd if any country had law that considered Usenet to
be anything but public space and thus archiveable (for any length of time)
by anyone who wished to do so. If such law exists, I'd be interested to see
the appropriate court's interpretation of that law (as in seeing case
history) and learn the rationale behind it (assuming there is one).
> Just to give an EU-example, follow the two links from
> http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/archive/index.html
"Connection to remote HTTP host failed."
John David Galt
> Jay Denebeim wrote:
>> Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search
>> engine.
>>
>> IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought
>> them.
>
> I'm not. What a bunch of megloamaical bastards. They're not even
> honoring X-No-Archive. You get 157,000 hits if you search for on
> x-no-archive.
How many of those are posts by ignorant posters who put
"X-No-Archive: yes" in the message body rather than the headers?
That shouldn't work.
Johan M. Olofsson
So in case the DejaNews archive was bought by a company located outside of
the USA you wouldn't complain?
I think the logical continuation of such an opinion would be to endorse
governments who oppose Usenet messages crossing state borders (or national
borders as you would say on your side of the Atlantic).
Jon Skeet
> How many of those are posts by ignorant posters who put
> "X-No-Archive: yes" in the message body rather than the headers?
> That shouldn't work.
I believe Deja (who introduced it in the first place, according to
another post I read) decided to notice it as the first line of the post,
to enable those whose newsreaders don't allow header changing/adding to
still avoid being archived (in theory :)
--
Jon Skeet - sk...@pobox.com
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Ron Natalie
"Johan M. Olofsson" wrote:
>
> On 13 feb 2001, Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote in news.groups:
>
> >> Usenet covers several countries, with different laws, and different
> >> degree of intended enforcement of their laws in this respect.
> >
> > Google is in California. I'm in Virginia. WHile various international
> > jurisdictions may apply to the USENET as a whole, the subject abuse is
> > clearly subject to US federal law.
>
> So in case the DejaNews archive was bought by a company located outside of
> the USA you wouldn't complain?
>
Nope, it would just be difficult to make them comply with a US law (as they
would be outside the jurisdiction). Just because some entities on USENET
our outside the US, doesn't mean that individuals and corporations are not
subject to US laws.
> I think the logical continuation of such an opinion would be to endorse
> governments who oppose Usenet messages crossing state borders (or national
> borders as you would say on your side of the Atlantic).
You're being silly.
Adam H. Kerman
>Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> wrote:
>> Good point. I wonder if you might be able to make a case that if XNA was
>>used *in conjunction* with an Expires: header, that to retain the article
>>beyond that point was a clear breach of copyright?
>Nope. The expires header is defined as being a suggestion.
It suggests that the message could be expired after a certain time because the
information it contains is of no use after that time. X-No-Archive says the
author didn't want his article found by the Deja search engine. The two have
separate purposes.
Jan Schaumann
>
> Just because some entities on USENET
> our outside the US, doesn't mean that individuals and corporations are not
> subject to US laws.
??
So any ondividual and any ciorporation *any*where is subject to US law?
Company Foo in Sweden has to obey US law??
Ridicolous.
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
HEAD CRASH!! FILES LOST!!
Details at 11.
Kai Henningsen
Problems running NT programs on Un*x boxen?
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Kai Henningsen
> I would like to see Google respect Deja's standards for XNA.
They already said they will.
From whatI can piece together, Google was working on their own Usenet
archive, when suddenly it turned outthat they could buy Deja. On the other
hand, that meant that while they could make Deja's DNS point to their
server, Deja's own pipe would be shut down immediately, and in the mean
time they had to give the public *something*.
So they pointed the public at their own archive, which was not really
ready for prime time, but at least it was more than nothing.
From their comments, X-No-Archive: support was quickly hacked into their
archiver, but ithad not been in there before - and I believe they had no
intention to go filter those articles out of their small archive when they
could instead spend their manpower on getting Deja's archive online again.
Which must be a herculean task, especially as they practically need to
rewrite the software completely - no NT at Google.
If, for whatever reason, you (generic you) can't wait that long, ask them
to remove specific articles manually.
Kai Henningsen
I get mismatches, but only in the web search. Either an engine difference,
or (quite possibly) the Usenet archive is currently simply not large
enough and doesn't contain other kinds of matches for this phrase.
Rob Mitchell
<vincen...@vinc17.org> wrote:
> In article <3A885A05...@spamcop.net>,
> Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
> > law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
>
> I disagree. BTW, I hope you won't sue me because I quoted a part of
> your article. :)
And caused it to be re-archived as well. ;-)
Rob
--
Andrew Brunner: "What happened to Boston???"
Alan Krueger: "Last I heard, it's where it's
always been." - 6-21-00.
Christopher Biow
>* Christopher Biow wrote:
>> jsch...@www.netmeister.org (Jan Schaumann) wrote:
>> Deja had a convention that they would accept 'X-No-archive' in the first
>> line of body text, as a means for accomodating newsreaders which did not
>> allow customer headers. Their header, their service, their choice on how to
>> implement it.
>> I would like to see Google respect Deja's standards for XNA.
>So if google decided that it's also proper to leave an empty
>subject-line and instead specify the subject in the first (ok, second,
>since the first is already reserved for your x-no-archive-thingy)
>line(s), you'd think it'd be a good idea?
Strawman. I didn't say that, nor is there any valid analogy between that
and my suggestion that Google respect a convention with widespread usage
and a tradition of adherence by the only significant long-term Usenet
archive, which they appear to be taking over.
>[more wild, failed analogies elided]
Much as it may upset your applecart, it has been a functioning, accepted
standard for the Deja archive for some years. Offhand, I can't think of any
other widespread convention for message-level metadata within Usenet
message bodies. (I'd consider sig boundaries and such to be zone
information.)
I wouldn't expect that Deja within-body XNA convention to ever make it into
any RFCs. Nor would I expect other miscellaneous archives to respect it, or
for that matter the XNA header itself. I *do* expect Deja's net.heirs to
respect it, much as those who bought out eToys were ethically bound to
respect the old eToys privacy policies on the use of their email lists.
Rob Mitchell
<r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> In news.groups, Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> writes:
>
> > Interesting point. If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them
> > out from the search interface, that probably puts them in the clear in
> > terms of copyright, since they aren't republishing them. But if they
> > claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have been entered into
> > their database in the first place.
>
> However, Deja always did the former and not the latter, or at least that's
> what I've heard from multiple sources for quite some time.
Hmmm, I've never seen the slightest solid documentation that xna posts
were ever kept on any of Deja's servers at any time.
Biil Palmer
> > > Interesting point. If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them
> > > out from the search interface, that probably puts them in the clear in
> > > terms of copyright, since they aren't republishing them. But if they
> > > claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have been entered into
> > > their database in the first place.
> >
> > However, Deja always did the former and not the latter, or at least that's
> > what I've heard from multiple sources for quite some time.
>
> Hmmm, I've never seen the slightest solid documentation that xna posts
> were ever kept on any of Deja's servers at any time.
You must not have been a paying customer. The free archives are one thing,
the complete archives require an account. Usenet savvy employment agencies
typically sign up for the deluxe accounts.
John M Price PhD
: It occurred to me that Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote in news.software.readers:
:
:> CRUDDY?! It's already a _great_ improvement over the old Deja user
:> interface, even with Jeremy Nixon's frontend. It's much more
:> efficient to use.
: Hmm. I really miss Deja's backdoor for requesting an article in
: "original Usenet format" using a single URL. (it used to be
: http://www.deja.com/=dnc/msgid.xp?MID=%3CMessageID%3E\&fmt=text
: )
I did send a note today reminding them of the Message-ID: header
line. I've only looked at the new site with lynx, but can't seem to get
full headers.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
The Celtic countries, by the way, are the only places where you can find
peat. God did this because he knew that the Celts were the only people
who drink so much that they would try to burn mud.
- P.J. O'Rourke "Trips to Nowhere"
Matthew L. Bruce
> Thank you for posting this press release that dejanews is no longer
> available to search past messages as it once was.
>
> I am being asked by a few fellow goofs on a local newsgroup to produce any
> posts from this one user on winnipeg.general from 1994 to 1999
> approximately and can not.
Are you a stalker?
> I simply said that yes, this professor did swear in his posts mutliple times
> (hundreds) of times in his thousands of posts over the few years of posting
> on "wpg.general" and I can't seem to get messages past the year 2000 on what
> was dejanews.com
Yes, you are a stalker.
> All I want to do is post a handful of posts back onto winnipeg.general to
> show were he used many of the words George Carline said you can't say on the
> radio :)
That's "Carlin", dickhead.
> I don't have any problem with him saying these things now, but at the time 6
> years ago, i found it unusual and not acceptable to have these words come
> out of a professor and from a free account aimed at me and others.
>
> Thanks if you can help me dig up old posts from 1994- 1999 on Norm.
You seem to be the type to start a new group, soc.support.stalking,
to help enable yourself and other stalkers to fuck with people.
When will you submit the RFD?
Dan Wright
Jan Schaumann <jsch...@www.netmeister.org> wrote in message
news:slrn98jb21....@www.netmeister.org...
> * Ron Natalie wrote:
> >
> > Just because some entities on USENET
> > our outside the US, doesn't mean that individuals and corporations are
not
> > subject to US laws.
>
> ??
> So any ondividual and any ciorporation *any*where is subject to US law?
> Company Foo in Sweden has to obey US law??
>
> Ridicolous.
>
> -Jan
>
I do believe that is that the French courts did to Yahoo over Nazi
memorabilia, and Yahoo complied.
I too think it is ridiculous.
- Dan
Christopher Jahn
>pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote in
><96b7n5$uja$1...@citadel.in.taronga.com>:
>>Did you do the same thing to Altavista and everyone else who
>>put ads on search results?
>
>Altavista presents the ads separately, as banners. Nothing
>wrong with that. What was wrong about what Deja did was link
>words you had written in your post to external sites, making
>it seem as though you had included those links in your post.
>It was deceptive and unethical. I have no problem with
>Deja's archive, but I have problems with them altering posts.
>
I didn't catch Deja doing it - by the time someone mentioned it,
they had stopped. BUT if I had caught them, I would have taken
the same action.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
My favorite weapon is the look in your eyes
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Christopher Jahn
>In article <Xns9046EBB...@24.129.0.130>,
>Christopher Jahn <xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>Having said that, I did force RemarQ to filter out my posts
>>when they started ad-linking. But I made THEM figure it
>>out; I was specifically denying them the right to link my
>>words to product endorsements; I was not interested in
>>getting "off-record".
>>
>>Of course, they didn't do it until I billed them; then they
>>dropped me right off their servers.
>
>Did you do the same thing to Altavista and everyone else who
>put ads on search results?
>
Altavista has not done "ad-linking"; taking words in my post and
turning them into hyperlinks that lead to vendors. I have no
problem with people having banners on a site, expecially one
that provides a service.
piranha
<slrn98ita...@bofh.concordia.ca>:
> In news.groups,
> piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote:
> >
> > leaving the deja engine in place until they've migrated would've
> > been better to begin with.
>
> I've seen this suggestion in a lot of places. Google didn't buy
> *hardware* from Deja, though, and certainly didn't buy administrative
> staff; I can't imagine any way in which Unix-based Google could have
> run Deja's old NT-based front end without taking a considerable loss,
> not to mention significant training and migration problems.
yes, doing it that way wouldn't make sense. i guess i am always
hoping for some transition period where the old guys keep the
old system up while the new guys get ready.
but since i know nothing about the intricacies behind this deal, i
was just shooting off my mouth wishfully.
NT-based, eh? that explains a lot.
--
-piranha
Doug Bagley
> Problems running NT programs on Un*x boxen?
We did not run NT at Deja.
We were 100% Linux.
Cheers,
Doug
Jan Schaumann
This weird episode of "When good intentions go bad" was, however,
somewhat different than what Ron suggested:
In Yahoo's case, it was (IIRC) solely Yahoo-France that did not index
these pages or removed them or whatever. You could (and can) still get
these pages through http://www.yahoo.com
In this case, it was a preventive move of Yahoo-France to avoid a long
and possibly expensive and fruitless struggle, and they decided to
comply - however, Ron seems to suggest that every company anywhere has
to obey by US law, which, just as the Yahoo-episode, is ridicolous. I
would assume that you *could* sue Google (and heck, in this country you
probably would win), but that it's common sense that one can not
restrict the internet to the US just as one can not prevent a company
like Google to move their headquarters to some other country and do
whatever they please.
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
Who wouldn't be interested in everything we do?!
-- Calvin
Jan Schaumann
> jsch...@www.netmeister.org (Jan Schaumann) wrote:
> >* Christopher Biow wrote:
> >> jsch...@www.netmeister.org (Jan Schaumann) wrote:
>
> >> Deja had a convention that they would accept 'X-No-archive' in the first
> >> line of body text, as a means for accomodating newsreaders which did not
> >> allow customer headers. Their header, their service, their choice on how to
> >> implement it.
>
> >> I would like to see Google respect Deja's standards for XNA.
>
> I wouldn't expect that Deja within-body XNA convention to ever make it into
> any RFCs. Nor would I expect other miscellaneous archives to respect it, or
> for that matter the XNA header itself. I *do* expect Deja's net.heirs to
> respect it, much as those who bought out eToys were ethically bound to
> respect the old eToys privacy policies on the use of their email lists.
However, I disagree - a header is a header is a header. And stuff stuck
*anywhere* in the body is just that: part of the body. It should not be
treated differently.
Oh well, people disagree - we shall see what google does.
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
Choose two:
(A) Fast (B) Efficient
(C) Stable (D) Windows 98 (counts as two)
PeterD
<66lj8tk0pd8otpmme...@4ax.com>...
>tayllor wrote:
>
>> Thank you for posting this press release that dejanews is no longer
>> available to search past messages as it once was.
>>
>> I am being asked by a few fellow goofs on a local newsgroup to
produce any
>> posts from this one user on winnipeg.general from 1994 to 1999
>> approximately and can not.
>
>Are you a stalker?
WoW! Here's a person who's never Don, never had a chat with him, doesn't
know him from Adam.
And yet after only five lines of text he sees DOn for what he is.
And no offence to Matthew, but I dont' think it was a particularly
clever insight that caused you to come the the conclusion. :-)
Now why is it, Don, that a total stranger can spot you for a stalker but
you persist in claiming you're not?
I mean, when you threatened to call my family at 4 in the morning,
you're not a stalker.
When you harrass and phone the employer of the person you found
disagreeing with you, you're not a stalker.
Come on, Don, you really do walk like a duck! <lol>
---------
Peter D
Delores Wollmann
Paul Bolchover wrote:
>
> In article <96b7cr$ue6$1...@citadel.in.taronga.com>,
> Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
> >In article <slrn98i3f4.kgj.pino+...@mud.stack.nl>,
> >Martijn van Buul <pino+news_sof...@dohd.org> wrote:
> >>It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
> >>> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
> >>> and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
> >
> >>Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
> >>of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
> >>Deja archived them after all..
> >
> >That's what was bothering me. Are y'all sure that Deja's DB is actually in use
> >yet?
> >
> >It's X-No-Archive, after all, not X-No-Display.
> >
> >And apparently they didn't really nuke articles when asked, either, they
> >just hid them.
>
> Someone mentioned elsewhere in this thread that it's likely that the current
> interface is to Google's own archive of usenet posts, and they haven't
> got round to incorporating the Deja archive yet - when they do so, they'll
> obviously get rid of the nuked articles...
>
> Paul Bolchover
"Obviously"?!?
Kai Henningsen
> So any ondividual and any ciorporation *any*where is subject to US law?
I sometimes get the impression that US courts seem to think exactly that.
> Ridicolous.
Well, to non-USians, certainly ...