Is there a freeware NNTP client for posting to USENET from a google groups login?

[Cary Williams]

I use a web browser to read and write to USENET newsgroups
using my Google Groups login - but I wonder if there is a
freeware newsreader (nntp client) that can do the same thing?

Is there an nntp client that can post to USENET groups via
Google's groups.google.com servers?

[JJ]

Is Google's NNTP server really available to public via NNTP client?

[Addison]

JJ wrote on Wed, 01 May 2013 15:26:33 +0700:

>> Is there an nntp client that can post to USENET groups via
>> Google's groups.google.com servers?
>
> Is Google's NNTP server really available to public via NNTP client?

I was wondering the same thing.

[Mike Yetto]

In a world where JJ <d...@nah.meh>
posts to Usenet.

Google Groups is not Usenet and there is no NNTP server/client
relationship. It is a web front-end for Google fora (AKA Google
Groups) with an incidental feed to Usenet for the purpose of
claiming a greater size.

Mike "is that *really* 8 inches?" Yetto
--
"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion,
by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense"
- Carl Sagan

[Jon Danniken]

Why would you want to? There are a plethora of free news servers, and
if you have an nntp client, you can access any of them.

About the only reason most people use g**gle is because of the web
interface; why would you want to use a newsreader to access it?

Jon

[Addison]

Jon Danniken wrote on Wed, 01 May 2013 05:40:10 -0700:

> Why would you want to?

Google archives go way back.

[s|b]

On 01 May 2013 07:29:07 GMT, Cary Williams wrote:

> I use a web browser to read and write to USENET newsgroups
> using my Google Groups login

As far as I can see, you're using usenet4all.se right now. :-?

--
s|b

[Mike Easter]

Cary Williams wrote:
> I use a web browser to read and write to USENET newsgroups
> using my Google Groups login

That is a very bad idea for a number of different kinds of reasons.

GG is a terrible reader interface compared to an nntp reader. GG is
full of unfiltered spam and you are unable to filter the spam. Because
GG is also a notorious source of usenet spam, many wise nntp readers
choose to filter out all messages posted from GG sources, which
eliminates your messages from the view of many which you would rather
your messages be seen.

> - but I wonder if there is a
> freeware newsreader (nntp client) that can do the same thing?

Why not do the 'normal' better thing which is to use an nntp news server
and nntp news reader so that you have a better interface and better
filtering?

IMO you should only use GG for a couple of purposes: searching usenet
archives, whatever might be found in googlespecific groups, and
sometimes referring someone to a usenet message which has been archived
in GG if it isn't available in HK's MID archive.

> Is there an nntp client that can post to USENET groups via
> Google's groups.google.com servers?

GG does not make its servers available to nntp clients.


--
Mike Easter

[whosbest54]

In article <klqnko$ruv$2...@news.albasani.net>, Add...@Addison.com
says...

I recall this has been asked and answered before, but quite some time
ago. The answer was no, and I believe it still is. You have to use
their web interface.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rao.htm

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rmb.html

[p-0''0-h the cat (ES)]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:43:36 -0700, Mike Easter <Mi...@ster.invalid>
wrote:

>GG is
>full of unfiltered spam and you are unable to filter the spam. Because
>GG is also a notorious source of usenet spam, many wise nntp readers
>choose to filter out all messages posted from GG sources

I've never noticed much GG SPAM come through any nntp provider I've
used. Does it get centrally filtered before getting onto Usenet proper?
Otherwise surely that would replicate around. Perhaps, it's filtered at
each server. I dunno. Does anyone. I feel a strange need to know how it
works.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Attention new posters. Beware: ACF is under attack by a small number of
trolls who post false and misleading replies to questions here, and run
campaigns of lies against some of the long term regulars in order to get
them killfiled.

These are my recommendations to filter their malicious trollspam

By filtering out messages containing q34w...@yahoo.com
<< q34wsk20-at-yahoo.com>> AND <<no...@nowhere.com>> AND <<Dud...@Dreamcatcher.com>>
in the "From:" header and messages containing "ccountrynet" in the path statement
you will knock out more than half or even three quarters of the trollspamming in
this group.

I also recommend filtering all crossposts, anonymous remailers, and any
posts with these providers in the path:

eternal-september.org
dotsrc.org
ccountrynet < especially this one
individual.net
easynews.com
anonymous

[Mark Warner]

Good catch.

Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!news.on-luebeck.de!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!feeder.usenet4all.se!spool01.usenet4all.se!not-for-mail

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[Mike Easter]

p-0''0-h the cat (ES) wrote:
> Mike Easter

>> GG is full of unfiltered spam and you are unable to filter the
>> spam. Because GG is also a notorious source of usenet spam, many
>> wise nntp readers choose to filter out all messages posted from GG
>> sources
>
> I've never noticed much GG SPAM come through any nntp provider I've
> used. Does it get centrally filtered before getting onto Usenet proper?
> Otherwise surely that would replicate around. Perhaps, it's filtered at
> each server. I dunno. Does anyone. I feel a strange need to know how it
> works.

NIN news.individual.net has excellent spam filters and spam cancellers.

e-s eternal-september has pretty good spam filters as do others such as
mixmin which use cleanfeed http://www.mixmin.net/cleanfeed/



--
Mike Easter

[Mike Easter]

s|b wrote:
> Cary Williams wrote:
>
>> I use a web browser to read and write to USENET newsgroups
>> using my Google Groups login
>
> As far as I can see, you're using usenet4all.se right now. :-?

Some people think they 'have to' use GG if they have trouble sometimes
accessing port 119 service, depending on how a particular location may
limit access from their equipment and connectivity.

My understanding is that usenet4all.se is port 119 only; whereas other
choices of free servers may have a much wider range of port choices.

Also, recently the nym Tony Palermo did an evaluation of a number of
free newsservers which he posted to acf, and he had a little trouble
with usenet4all in his first message in this thread, not mentioned in
later summaries:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.free.newsservers/browse_thread/thread/9605031e06e58ba4
Subject: Current Summary of All Purposely Free General Use Public nntp
USENET newsservers



--
Mike Easter

[VanguardLH]

Which means they are useful (less so for the last 3 years due to ever
increasing crappy searching) as just that: an archive. Anyone picking
up an ancient thread to restart that conversation is a boob. Start a
new conversation. As an archive, yes, you can find old posts but use
the web UI for that. Plus are YOU really going to suffer an extremely
slow local NNTP client to compile a local database the same size as
for Google Groups? Well, obviously not so that huge archive is still
of no value to your local client.

[VanguardLH]

There are several good NNTP providers for Usenet. There is no need to
incur the overhead of running an NNTP-to-HTTP gateway or converter.

Would be better for you to post using some Usenet provider *other*
than Google Groups. Many regulars filter out Google Groups to
eliminate the nuisance and noise of posts from trolls, imposters,
peuriles, and uber-boobs. Hey, you might be okay but not after you
jump into the barrel of GG monkeys to become one of them.

If you are using an NNTP client, or one that just looks like one, then
there is no point in bothering with Google Groups' web interface.
You've decided to use a DIFFERENT interface to Usenet so use that one
complete which means not just using an NNTP-looking client but also an
NNTP-communicating one.

Since you are willing to incur the learning curve to learn a new
newsgroups client then disconnect from Google Groups to use a real
NNTP provider. You already did that with Usenet4all so why not stick
with them or switch to or add other real NNTP providers.

[p-0''0-h the cat (ES)]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 08:52:58 -0700, Mike Easter <Mi...@ster.invalid>
wrote:

Yep, in addition I've never been inundated with GG SPAM from albasani,
aioe, x-privat, or news.sunsite.dk either. I think this was just another
pogrom led by the usual suspects against yet another sub section of ACF
posters. This feud has roots back to Blinky's intolerance towards
LAMER's egged on by his virtual veneration by Johnny Corliss. However,
whatever the cause then, I think it's not relevant now.

[Mike Easter]

Sn!pe wrote:
> Mike Easter

>> Also, recently the nym Tony Palermo did an evaluation of a number of
>> free newsservers which he posted to acf,

> If I'm not mistaken, Tony Palermo proved to be yet another sock-puppet
> of notorious .net-abuser Paul Derbyshire and as such his conclusions
> should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.
>
> I will of course be delighted to be proved wrong in this.

Some people imagine a particular sock-puppet or another behind every
unfamiliar nym without any good useful evidence to support it.

I think the business of handwriting analysis is likely to be
inconsistent and errant; and absent anything better than a handwriting
guess, such guesses about which sock-puppet is whose is better left
unsaid because of the possibility of being wrong.

"I'm so smart I can make a reckless guess about something that I don't
know."


--
Mike Easter

[»Q«]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 11:45:04 -0500
VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:

> Plus are YOU really going to suffer an extremely slow local NNTP
> client to compile a local database the same size as for Google
> Groups? Well, obviously not so that huge archive is still of no
> value to your local client.

It's not an all-or-nothing issue. If Google allowed NNTP access, it
would be easier to get whatever bits of their archive one wanted,
without having to have a database the same size as Google's.

[VanguardLH]

�Q� wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Plus are YOU really going to suffer an extremely slow local NNTP
>> client to compile a local database the same size as for Google
>> Groups? Well, obviously not so that huge archive is still of no
>> value to your local client.
>
> It's not an all-or-nothing issue. If Google allowed NNTP access, it
> would be easier to get whatever bits of their archive one wanted,
> without having to have a database the same size as Google's.

Considering how Google is moving away from the old UI for newsgroups
and trying to shove in their new UI with less functionality, I really
doubt Google has any plans to make public the access to their NNTP
servers (which do exist to peer articles with/to other NNTP servers).

From what I can see of Google's handling of Usenet, Google is planning
to make Usenet disappear or make it look like their forum-based
"groups" which means web-only access and not peered across a worldwide
mesh network of non-Google hosts. Usenet is slowly dying at Google.

[»Q«]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:06:02 -0500
VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:

> »Q« wrote:
>
> > VanguardLH wrote:
> >
> >> Plus are YOU really going to suffer an extremely slow local NNTP
> >> client to compile a local database the same size as for Google
> >> Groups? Well, obviously not so that huge archive is still of no
> >> value to your local client.
> >
> > It's not an all-or-nothing issue. If Google allowed NNTP access, it
> > would be easier to get whatever bits of their archive one wanted,
> > without having to have a database the same size as Google's.
>
> Considering how Google is moving away from the old UI for newsgroups
> and trying to shove in their new UI with less functionality, I really
> doubt Google has any plans to make public the access to their NNTP
> servers (which do exist to peer articles with/to other NNTP servers).

I'd stake your life on them not giving NNTP pull access; I thought it
was clear that we were only discussing a hypothetical situation.

[Mike Easter]

VanguardLH wrote:

> Considering how Google is moving away from the old UI for newsgroups
> and trying to shove in their new UI with less functionality,

Among the many many things that are worse about the new UI, it also
doesn't respect the XNA header.

Messages with XNA are 'flagged' by the new UI that XNA has been
requested by the author, but then when the XNA date has passed, the
message is still visible in the new UI but not in the old UI.

However, the message source 'original' for an XNA message is not
viewable in either the old or new UI after the XNA date has passed.

--
Mike Easter

[JJ]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 08:09:20 -0400, Mike Yetto wrote:
> Google Groups is not Usenet and there is no NNTP server/client
> relationship. It is a web front-end for Google fora (AKA Google
> Groups) with an incidental feed to Usenet for the purpose of
> claiming a greater size.

I said Google's NNTP, not Google Groups. And as you said, Google Groups is
just a front-end for the NNTP, so Google must have its own NNTP server,
which I suspect, are write-only.

Looking at a post from Google Groups (taken from the Path header), Google
uses these servers.

news-out.google.com
nntp.google.com
postnews.google.com
groupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com

[JJ]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 16:36:28 -0500, Pepi wrote:
> I sure wouldn't miss it. I do miss DejaNews, however. Back then it was a
> good service. Now, it's a bloody joke.

I'm pretty sure that, anything bought by big companies 99% of them would end
up getting prettier but loosing functionalities. Both web services and
softwares.

[eveshi]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:06:02 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> Considering

*SHADDUP*
--
The greatest collection of afterlife evidence ever assembled !!
http://www.intbel.co.uk/leslie_flint_recordings.html

[eveshi]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 11:45:13 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> There

[Ralph Fox]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 11:45:13 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> Cary Williams wrote:
>
> > I use a web browser to read and write to USENET newsgroups
> > using my Google Groups login - but I wonder if there is a
> > freeware newsreader (nntp client) that can do the same thing?
> >
> > Is there an nntp client that can post to USENET groups via
> > Google's groups.google.com servers?
>
> There are several good NNTP providers for Usenet. There is no need to
> incur the overhead of running an NNTP-to-HTTP gateway or converter.

If you try to use an NNTP-to-HTTP gateway or converter with Google
Groups, or even if Google suspect you could possibly be trying to do
so, all of your requests to the Google Groups server will return a
web page which has nothing but this on it:


Google Sorry...
We're sorry...
... but your computer or network may be sending automated queries.
To protect our users, we can't process your request right now.



--
Kind regards
Ralph

[VanguardLH]

eveshi wrote:

> On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:06:02 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Considering
>
> *SHADDUP*

I don't do requests, especially from self-professed newbs.

[VanguardLH]

eveshi wrote:

> On Wed, 1 May 2013 11:45:13 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> There
>
> *SHADDUP*

Just can't come up with anything new, can you?

[Mike Yetto]

In a world where JJ <d...@nah.meh>
posts to Usenet.

Yes, I know. However, the NNTP servers that Google uses is no
more than the sewer pipe used to dump GG posts to Usenet. It is
not there to allow you to bypass GG. That is what I ment by
Client/Server relationship.

Mike "telnet nntp.google.com gets you nowhere" Yetto
--
"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion,
by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense"
- Carl Sagan

[Shmuel Metz]

In <20130501135...@fuchsia.remarqs.net>, on 05/01/2013

at 01:56 PM, ￜQￜ <box...@gmx.net> said:

>It's not an all-or-nothing issue. If Google allowed NNTP access, it
>would be easier to get whatever bits of their archive one wanted,
>without having to have a database the same size as Google's.

OTOH, if google had[1] an option for showing and filing the original
version of an article, there would be no need for NNTP access to them.
It would also help if their search engine were more reliable.

[1] As opposed to having a button so labelled but not providing
the functionality.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[51%]

I'm sure you're right, previously, my prefs. were for Netscape browsers
& Eudora, which got bought & became unusable (for me).. Currently, my
win7 box insists it won't support a 16bit reader, but I just ignore
them..

http://sillydog.org/narchive/

.

[kensi]

Gotta poast&run tonight! But I thought this SPNAK was noteworthy:

On 01/05/2013 1:57 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
> Sn!pe wrote:
>> Mike Easter
>>> Also, recently the nym Tony Palermo did an evaluation of a number of
>>> free newsservers which he posted to acf,
>> If I'm not mistaken, Tony Palermo proved to be yet another sock-puppet

>> of notorious .net-abuser Paul Dinsdale and as such his conclusions

>> should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.
>>
>> I will of course be delighted to be proved wrong in this.
>
> Some people imagine a particular sock-puppet or another behind every
> unfamiliar nym without any good useful evidence to support it.

SPNAK! on the paranoid kOok Tr!pe.

*snicker*

> I think the business of handwriting analysis is likely to be
> inconsistent and errant; and absent anything better than a handwriting
> guess, such guesses about which sock-puppet is whose is better left
> unsaid because of the possibility of being wrong.

And SPNAK! on all of the *other* paranoid ko0ks that burble and froth
continually about Derbyshire in afn, auk, and other froups.

*snicker*

> "I'm so smart I can make a reckless guess about something that I don't
> know."

Not so smart when, as often happens, one or another of their accusations
gets proved wrong, though, hmm?

*snicker*

Now I'm off for the weekend. KoOkS will foam mightily about it no doubt.
Let them. We could use a few more good laughs when Monday rolls around.
You can never have too many laughs on a Monday.

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

[Nadegda]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:45:13 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> Would be better for you to post using some Usenet provider *other* than
> Google Groups. Many regulars filter out Google Groups to eliminate the
> nuisance and noise of posts from trolls, imposters, peuriles, and
> uber-boobs.

Actually, GG is a poor choice of service for trolls and imposters --
though it's relatively tolerant of behavior some would consider abuse, it
also sticks an unhashed IP address in the headers of every outgoing
article.

The real nasty goons are more likely to use remailers, like a certain
kook that's about to be up for more awards for May. Experienced trolls
and miscreants use abuse-friendly, privacy-respecting NNTP providers
knowing that remailers are slow, unreliable, and widely killfiled. It
seems alt.net and databasix.com are the most popular NNTP providers for
career usenet trolls, kooks, and miscreants, rather than either remailers
or Google Groups.

What Google Groups has lots of is clueless newbs.

[eveshi]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:04:35 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> I

[eveshi]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 03:05:10 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> Just

[Ralph Fox]

On Sat, 4 May 2013 00:24:51 +0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote:

> Actually, GG is a poor choice of service for trolls and imposters --
> though it's relatively tolerant of behavior some would consider abuse, it
> also sticks an unhashed IP address in the headers of every outgoing
> article.

That unhashed IP address does not worry T.O.R. users, who can post
from an Otario IP address one minute and from a Dutch IP address
the next minute.


--
Kind regards
Ralph

[Mr. Fixit]

There are a few thousand Tor users out of a few million usenetters -- not a
high enough percentage to worry about. :)

[FromTheRafters]

Ralph Fox explained on 5/4/2013 :

I've done that myself, just for test purposes. I posted from Portsmouth
Maine and then about a minute later posted from Sofia Bulgaria. It
wasn't quite as straightforward as one might expect though.

[Ralph Fox]

And there are plenty of other ways in which a poster can avoid having
the same IP address every time.


--
Kind regards
Ralph

[Thorny Crucifixi.]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 22:21:45 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
wrote in:<go0fo8tlj36mjvhnj...@4ax.com>

>On Sat, 4 May 2013 04:27:13 -0400, Mr. Fixit wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 04 May 2013 20:10:32 +1200, Ralph Fox wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 4 May 2013 00:24:51 +0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote:
>> >

Hi Paul.

>> >> Actually, GG is a poor choice of service for trolls and imposters --
>> >> though it's relatively tolerant of behavior some would consider abuse, it
>> >> also sticks an unhashed IP address in the headers of every outgoing
>> >> article.
>> >
>> > That unhashed IP address does not worry T.O.R. users, who can post
>> > from an Otario IP address one minute and from a Dutch IP address
>> > the next minute.
>>
>> There are a few thousand Tor users out of a few million usenetters -- not a
>> high enough percentage to worry about. :)
>

Hi Paul.
And millions of Ontarians... right Paul?

>
>And there are plenty of other ways in which a poster can avoid having
>the same IP address every time.
>

Nice fly Ralph... let's see if the Duuurbs chomps at it.
--
alt.usenet.kooks