Having trouble posting to this group
John
JohnTheGeek
> Just testing to see if my postings are getting though to this group.
Yes, yes, they are, but you should use alt.test otherwise
you may be in store for flames.
--
Do you twitter? http://twitter.com
Do you want to be a cranky geek? http://www.crankygeeks.com/
Improving usenet: http://improve-usenet.org/ (I score GG down by 99)
Mepis32 RLU #451587i,Vista and MacOSXp
Blinky the Shark
> Just testing to see if my postings are getting though to this group.
Clue: If they'll make it to alt.test, they'll make it to this group.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
HEMI-Powered
du jour ...
>> Just testing to see if my postings are getting though to this
>> group.
>
> Clue: If they'll make it to alt.test, they'll make it to this
> group.
>
I obviously agree that tests should be made to a text or binary
test group, there are plenty. But with my Easynews account (I'm
posting right now from Supernews) it actually CAN happen that
many/most/vurtually all do exactly as you say, which of course, is
what you'd expect. I try not to wear out my welcome doing tests to
a production group, but just last week I had a similar problem to
the OP, but not with this NG.
Just my experience, YMMV Blinky.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"
Mike Easter
> Blinky the Shark
>> <John cite>
>>> Just testing to see if my postings are getting though to this
>>> group.
>>
>> Clue: If they'll make it to alt.test, they'll make it to this
>> group.
> I obviously agree that tests should be made to a text or binary
> test group, there are plenty. But with my Easynews account (I'm
> posting right now from Supernews) it actually CAN happen that
> many/most/vurtually all do exactly as you say, which of course, is
> what you'd expect. I try not to wear out my welcome doing tests to
> a production group, but just last week I had a similar problem to
> the OP, but not with this NG.
I infer that your ramble after the first sentence was an implication that
you might need to try to post something to a normal discussion group to
see if it would work there as well as it did in a test group.
I say that if you are going to do something like that, you should post
some comment to a thread which commentary doesn't look like a test -- or
if you are going to start a new thread for 'testing purposes', it
shouldn't look like a test message. It should look like a normal message
with appropriate content for an existing thread or a new topic.
--
Mike Easter
XS11E
Exactly. There's NEVER a reason to send a "test" message to a non-test
group. If HEMI-Powered wants to see if his/her/its messages are
getting through, just send the dang message, OK?
However, there's another usenet rule that overrides the test message
rule and that is = Test messages are perfectly welcome provided the
sender also send my a very large sum of money!
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>>> Just testing to see if my postings are getting though to
>>>> this group.
>>>
>>> Clue: If they'll make it to alt.test, they'll make it to
>>> this group.
>
>> I obviously agree that tests should be made to a text or
>> binary test group, there are plenty. But with my Easynews
>> account (I'm posting right now from Supernews) it actually
>> CAN happen that many/most/vurtually all do exactly as you
>> say, which of course, is what you'd expect. I try not to wear
>> out my welcome doing tests to a production group, but just
>> last week I had a similar problem to the OP, but not with
>> this NG.
>
> I infer that your ramble after the first sentence was an
> implication that you might need to try to post something to a
> normal discussion group to see if it would work there as well
> as it did in a test group.
Partially. What I was "inferring" was that sometimes one must
actually try a non-obtrusive "test" post in the groups they
believe are troublesome to them and/or their NSP. That doesn't
justify wholesale off-topic posting but can be occasionally
required if posting to the number of text and binary NGs doesn't
solve the problem du jour.
> I say that if you are going to do something like that, you
> should post some comment to a thread which commentary doesn't
> look like a test -- or if you are going to start a new thread
> for 'testing purposes', it shouldn't look like a test message.
> It should look like a normal message with appropriate content
> for an existing thread or a new topic.
>
That'll work, as would "test to verify NSP operation - please
ignore" or something like that which won't cause anyone to
actually read it except for the OP and minimize chances of
enraging others to flaming them. It's a tough call. This NG isn't
really a likely target unless a particular OP has been failing to
see their on-topic posts make it; In my experience with recent
Easynews problems (again, I'm posting from Supernews right now
because I'm sure that it does work), the real issue is with the
binary groups that I monitor. Sometimes it has been a failure for
actual binary posts to become visible in a timely manner while
other times it is long delays in on-topic text replies.
I am not trying to defend the right to make unfettered test posts
here or anywhere, simply to suggest that there are occasions
where very minor forays may be necessary at times depending on a
pariticular OP's real or perceived difficulties.
HEMI-Powered
> Exactly. There's NEVER a reason to send a "test" message to a
> non-test group. If HEMI-Powered wants to see if his/her/its
> messages are getting through, just send the dang message, OK?
HEMI doesn't have an issue with this NG as I don't post here from
my NSP which exhibits trouble. See my other reply this morning for
more background, but I was simply providing some perspective for
why others may violate the "no test posts" rule most people obey in
the production NGs, both text and binary.
> However, there's another usenet rule that overrides the test
> message rule and that is = Test messages are perfectly welcome
> provided the sender also send my a very large sum of money!
>
Yes, I do that, also. Look to your mailbox, the check's in the
mail! <grin>
XS11E
> XS11E added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> However, there's another usenet rule that overrides the test
>> message rule and that is = Test messages are perfectly welcome
>> provided the sender also send my a very large sum of money!
>>
> Yes, I do that, also. Look to your mailbox, the check's in the
> mail! <grin>
It was too small, just post your credit card number here, please. ;-)
Frank Slootweg
[...]
> Exactly. There's NEVER a reason to send a "test" message to a non-test
> group. If HEMI-Powered wants to see if his/her/its messages are
> getting through, just send the dang message, OK?
Yet another of XS11E's absolute statements!
Can you please shoot the combined B8MB for not having news.test? It's
the minimal penalty they deserve for violating your rule!
FYI, the *only* Big Eight test group, is misc.test (and .moderated).
Bummer, heh?
XS11E
> XS11E <xs...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Exactly. There's NEVER a reason to send a "test" message to a
>> non-test group. If HEMI-Powered wants to see if his/her/its
>> messages are getting through, just send the dang message, OK?
>
> Yet another of XS11E's absolute statements!
And yet another correct one, regardless of what your opinion might be.
> Can you please shoot the combined B8MB for not having news.test?
> It's the minimal penalty they deserve for violating your rule!
Totally irrelevant, of course and you would have known it had you
thought before posting.
> FYI, the *only* Big Eight test group, is misc.test (and .moderated).
> Bummer, heh?
Equally irrelevant, see my comment above.
Frank Slootweg
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > XS11E <xs...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> Exactly. There's NEVER a reason to send a "test" message to a
> >> non-test group. If HEMI-Powered wants to see if his/her/its
> >> messages are getting through, just send the dang message, OK?
> >
> > Yet another of XS11E's absolute statements!
>
> And yet another correct one, regardless of what your opinion might be.
False, see below.
> > Can you please shoot the combined B8MB for not having news.test?
> > It's the minimal penalty they deserve for violating your rule!
>
> Totally irrelevant, of course and you would have known it had you
> thought before posting.
Well, *I* did. What about you?
> > FYI, the *only* Big Eight test group, is misc.test (and .moderated).
> > Bummer, heh?
>
> Equally irrelevant, see my comment above.
So pray tell us master-of-all-wisdom, what is one to do if one is
having propagation problems with this hierarchy (or this group)?
Moral: Just because *you* can't *think* of a reason, doesn't mean
there *isn't* one.
QED. HTH. TFP. HAND. EOD. NP.
XS11E
> So pray tell us master-of-all-wisdom, what is one to do if one
> is having propagation problems with this hierarchy (or this group)?
You claim to have read and understood my original post, obviously you
didn't.
> Moral: Just because *you* can't *think* of a reason, doesn't
> mean there *isn't* one.
In this case, there isn't.
Frank Slootweg
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > So pray tell us master-of-all-wisdom, what is one to do if one
> > is having propagation problems with this hierarchy (or this group)?
>
> You claim to have read and understood my original post, obviously you
> didn't.
You didn't answer the question, so you lose the argument.
> > Moral: Just because *you* can't *think* of a reason, doesn't
> > mean there *isn't* one.
>
> In this case, there isn't.
I just *gave* you one (in the form of a question). (Assuming you can
and do read,) If you don't understand something it's customary to ask
questions.
Continual stamping of little feet and claiming someone is 'wrong'
without being able to say *why*, isn't a particularly convincing
debating method.
Frank Slootweg
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > So pray tell us master-of-all-wisdom, what is one to do if one
> > is having propagation problems with this hierarchy (or this group)?
>
> You claim to have read and understood my original post, obviously you
> didn't.
>
> > Moral: Just because *you* can't *think* of a reason, doesn't
> > mean there *isn't* one.
>
> In this case, there isn't.
"In *this* case" (emphasis mine)? Hmmm! I think I'm beginning to see
where your misunderstanding lies.
Your original post was:
> Exactly. There's NEVER a reason to send a "test" message to a non-test
> group. If HEMI-Powered wants to see if his/her/its messages are
> getting through, just send the dang message, OK?
It looks as if you think that my initial response ("Yet another of
XS11E's absolute statements!") was referring to your *complete*
paragraph. But it wasn't for the simple reason that 1) only your first
(not counting "Exactly.") sentence is an absolute statement( "NEVER")
and 2) your second sentence was clearly a misunderstanding because
HEMI-Powered *isn't* the OP, so your directive was misdirected.
So my comment *only* applied to your *absolute* statement "There's
NEVER a reason to send a "test" message to a non-test group.". *That*
statement is obviously wrong, because if one is having propagation
problems with this hierarchy (news.*) or a group in this hierarchy
(news.software.readers), one has no option *but* to post to a non-test
group, because (as I mentioned), there *is* no (news.) test group.
XS11E
> XS11E <xs...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > So pray tell us master-of-all-wisdom, what is one to do if
>> > one is having propagation problems with this hierarchy (or
>> > this group)?
>>
>> You claim to have read and understood my original post, obviously
>> you didn't.
>
> You didn't answer the question, so you lose the argument.
The question was answered in my original post which you claim to have
read.
>> > Moral: Just because *you* can't *think* of a reason, doesn't
>> > mean there *isn't* one.
>>
>> In this case, there isn't.
>
> I just *gave* you one (in the form of a question).
Which I answered.
XS11E
> So my comment *only* applied to your *absolute* statement
> "There's NEVER a reason to send a "test" message to a non-test
> group.".
> *That* statement is obviously wrong,
No, it's obviously correct.
<irrelevance snipped>
Frank Slootweg
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > So my comment *only* applied to your *absolute* statement
> > "There's NEVER a reason to send a "test" message to a non-test
> > group.".
>
> > *That* statement is obviously wrong,
>
> No, it's obviously correct.
>
> <irrelevance snipped>
It's only irrelevant in your misguided opinion, so ...
<restore>
>> because if one is having propagation
> > problems with this hierarchy (news.*) or a group in this hierarchy
> > (news.software.readers), one has no option *but* to post to a non-test
> > group, because (as I mentioned), there *is* no (news.) test group.
</restore>
A little excercise in Logic 101:
*If* you're right (with your "No, it's obviously correct."), the
exception mentioned in the/my "because ... test group." clause *must* be
wrong. (If it's correct, there is an exception, which invalidates your
"NEVER" condition.) So the burden of proof on you is to prove *what* is
wrong with the/my exception, and no, stamping of feet still doesn't
count as proof.
BTW, you *do* understand what "propagation problems" means, don't you?
(No, it does *not* mean that some poster "wants to see if his/her/its
messages are getting through".)
XS11E
<more of Frank's irrelevancies snipped>
Frank, I completely fail to understand your problem.
Every question you've asked, every objection you've raised have all
been answered entirely in my original post.
You say you read it, you say you understood it but that absolutely
cannot be true, if you had read and understood you could not possibly
be asking the questions and raising the objections you are.
For your convenience, here it is with only one modification, I've
changed "HEMI-Powered" to "anyone" because it applies to "anyone", not
to any one poster.
=============================================================
There's NEVER a reason to send a "test" message to a non-test
group. If anyone wants to see if his/her/its messages are
getting through, just send the dang message, OK?
=============================================================
A little exercise in logic for you:
*If one wants to post a message, post the message, not a 'test'
message, and see if it's getting through. Why? Because a 'test'
message is a violation of netiquette and, you must have wanted to say
something, else why are you trying to post?
*If the message does NOT get through, wait a reasonable time to make
sure it failed, fix what ever is wrong with your newsreader and post
the message again, not a 'test' message. Repeat as needed. Why?
Again, because a 'test' message is a violation of netiquette and, you
must have wanted to say something, else why are you trying to post?
*If one wants to legitimately test something such as an Xface that may
require repeat postings, post in a "test" group, hierarchy makes no
difference, the Xface will appear the same in alt. or news. or
whatever.
That's the end of this discussion.
Mike Easter
<snip>
> if one is having propagation
> problems with this hierarchy (news.*) or a group in this hierarchy
> (news.software.readers),
<snip>
What does it mean? - if one is having propagation problems with this
hierarchy (news.*)...
... ? and what does it mean? - if one is having propagation problems with
a group in (such a) hierarchy... ie news.software.readers
That is, how does such a particular propagation problem present itself?
Or alternatively, how does it come about? ..the mechanism? Or, what
would troubleshooting efforts for such a specific and limited propagation
problem present?
You post something to one hiearchy and it works and you post something to
another hierachy and it appears to be sent but it doesn't get posted due
to some kind of misconfiguration of the newsserver that results in
propagation problems for one hierarchy but not another? Or what?
--
Mike Easter
XS11E
> "propagation problems" is *not* the same as "anyone wants to see
> if his/her/its messages are getting through". The latter is just
> about *one* *poster* having problems. The former is about
> *articles* not getting through. It *can* be limited to one poster
> and then it's *your* case (*with the addition* that the
> poster_with_trouble and the tester don't have to be one and the
> same person). But it *can* and often is much wider (multiple
> posters, articles, groups, servers, etc.) and that is *my* case.
And *still* covered by my original post because propagation problems
still get down to one individual poster who cannot post and who must
find out why not. Multiple posters, articles, groups. servers, etc are
NOT the ones who will be posting 'test' messages, they can only come
from individuals and the 'test' message can and should be the actual
message the individual is trying to post rather than a 'test' message.
> So the conclusion is that you misunderstood what I meant with
> "propagation problems".
No, I understood.
>> That's the end of this discussion.
> That's fine with me. But feel free to continue, ask for
> clarification, etc..
None needed, thanks for the offer.
Mike Easter
> ... ? and what does it mean? - if one is having propagation problems
> with a group in (such a) hierarchy... ie news.software.readers
I'm getting a better handle on (new, not so new) newsgroup propagation
problems from the current thread in news.groups called 'Propagation'.
But, I think that if I were not knowing very much about some particular
new newsgroup's propagation, I wouldn't be going about researching it
(just) by posting a message to the group.
Well, I might post an ontopic message and see what happened based on a
combination of propagation and whether or not their were any responsive
readers getting the group on their newsservers and also motivated to
reply.
I believe that posting an ontopic message which might lead to replies is
both more appropriate and also more informative even in the issue of
newsgroup propagation -- just as it is more appropriate in the issue of
article propagation.
The business of newsgroup propagation is really all about how many other
people are seeing the article which is 'defined' by what level of
responsive activity is seen when various types of articles are posted.
'Test' - this is a test - articles don't fit that 'test' of newsgroup
propagation and newsgroup respondent responsiveness, whereas appropriate
and ontopic posts do.
--
Mike Easter
Frank Slootweg
Thanks for asking!
First of all, please see my latest (today's) response to XS11E.
More specifically, it means that one or more articles don't get from
server A to server B. As I mentioned to XS11E, it can occur for one or
more articles, one or more posters, one or more groups, one or more
hierarchies, one or more servers, etc.. I.e. the scope, is or at least
can be, much wider than some poster "wants to see if his/her/its
messages are getting through".
It often - but not only - comes about due to some configuration
problem. If it's not limited to one poster, it's often a server
configuration problem on or between server A or/and server B. (If it's
limited to one poster, it *can* still be a server problem.)
I hope that that answers some of your questions. Feel free to ask
more.
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter
>> What does it mean? - if one is having propagation problems with this
>> hierarchy (news.*)...
>>
>> ... ? and what does it mean? - if one is having propagation problems
>> with a group in (such a) hierarchy... ie news.software.readers
> More specifically, it means that one or more articles don't get from
> server A to server B. As I mentioned to XS11E, it can occur for one or
> more articles, one or more posters, one or more groups, one or more
> hierarchies, one or more servers, etc.. I.e. the scope, is or at least
> can be, much wider than some poster "wants to see if his/her/its
> messages are getting through".
>
> It often - but not only - comes about due to some configuration
> problem. If it's not limited to one poster, it's often a server
> configuration problem on or between server A or/and server B. (If it's
> limited to one poster, it *can* still be a server problem.)
>
> I hope that that answers some of your questions. Feel free to ask
> more.
I stand by my earlier position^1 which is the one XS11E was agreeing with
earlier.
- 'pure' test articles should be posted to test groups, whether they be
alt groups or big8 misc.test or even rump big8 groups such as comp.test
and so forth
- 'testing the waters' type test articles, which might be for the
purposes of testing some discussion group, whether it be alt, big8,
rump/rogue or otherwise, should be articles which are constructed to be
appropriate and ontopic, not purely/only - this is a test -
^1 news:MYudnVZBnsBVPkbV...@earthlink.com or GG
http://snipr.com/3y094 ie
<http://groups.google.com/group/news.software.readers/msg/d226727c5658ab5e
>
--
Mike Easter
Frank Slootweg
XS11E <xs...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "propagation problems" is *not* the same as "anyone wants to see
> > if his/her/its messages are getting through". The latter is just
> > about *one* *poster* having problems. The former is about
> > *articles* not getting through. It *can* be limited to one poster
> > and then it's *your* case (*with the addition* that the
> > poster_with_trouble and the tester don't have to be one and the
> > same person). But it *can* and often is much wider (multiple
> > posters, articles, groups, servers, etc.) and that is *my* case.
>
> And *still* covered by my original post because propagation problems
> still get down to one individual poster who cannot post and who must
> find out why not.
No. It is *not neccessarily* limited to one individual poster. That's
why I said "multiple posters, articles, groups, servers, etc.".
> Multiple posters, articles, groups. servers, etc are
> NOT the ones who will be posting 'test' messages, they can only come
> from individuals
Agreed, *BUT* - *as I said* - the person posting the test message (the
'tester') can be - and often is - someone *other* than the person having
a posting problem (the 'poster_with_trouble'). In that case, the tester/
trouble_shooter *will* - as I've been saying all this time - have to
post a test message to a non-test group (i.e. to nsr or news.* in my
example).
> and the 'test' message can and should be the actual
> message the individual is trying to post rather than a 'test' message.
Of course the tester *can* *label/'disguise'* the message in some
other way (i.e. "Subject: ... propagation problem ..."), but it *is* a
test message to a non-test group, hence your "NEVER" condition is false.
[...]
Frank Slootweg
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
> > ... ? and what does it mean? - if one is having propagation problems
> > with a group in (such a) hierarchy... ie news.software.readers
>
> I'm getting a better handle on (new, not so new) newsgroup propagation
> problems from the current thread in news.groups called 'Propagation'.
>
> But, I think that if I were not knowing very much about some particular
> new newsgroup's propagation, I wouldn't be going about researching it
> (just) by posting a message to the group.
>
> Well, I might post an ontopic message and see what happened based on a
> combination of propagation and whether or not their were any responsive
> readers getting the group on their newsservers and also motivated to
> reply.
If *Joe Enduser* has problems with *his* article(s) in some group,
especially in as you say a *new* (for him) group, then the approach you
mention is indeed best.
*My* point is that *Joe Enduser* is *not the only type of person*
which (who?) may need/want to troubleshoot propagation problems.
> I believe that posting an ontopic message which might lead to replies is
> both more appropriate and also more informative even in the issue of
> newsgroup propagation -- just as it is more appropriate in the issue of
> article propagation.
That depends on the situation. In some cases responses are
informative, in other cases they're not or not needed.
> The business of newsgroup propagation is really all about how many other
> people are seeing the article which is 'defined' by what level of
> responsive activity is seen when various types of articles are posted.
Not only people (not) seeing the article, but also servers (not)
'seeing' the article.
> 'Test' - this is a test - articles don't fit that 'test' of newsgroup
> propagation and newsgroup respondent responsiveness, whereas appropriate
> and ontopic posts do.
You basically say that a bad/uninformative article is just that. I
tend to agree! :-)
Frank Slootweg
[...]
> I stand by my earlier position^1 which is the one XS11E was agreeing with
> earlier.
>
> - 'pure' test articles should be posted to test groups, whether they be
> alt groups or big8 misc.test or even rump big8 groups such as comp.test
> and so forth
(Assuming I understand "rump" correctly,) Sorry, but no can do! You
are asking to do propagation testing in a group (i.e. a non-misc.test
Big Eight *.test group) which *itself* is nearly guaranteed (as in it
*should not exist*) to have propagation problems? (These groups are *not
on any* of my three servers, which includes the reputable NIN.)
> - 'testing the waters' type test articles, which might be for the
> purposes of testing some discussion group, whether it be alt, big8,
> rump/rogue or otherwise, should be articles which are constructed to be
> appropriate and ontopic, not purely/only - this is a test -
See my earlier responses to XS11E and you.
XS11E
> [See also my response to Mike Easter's questions.]
>
> XS11E <xs...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> And *still* covered by my original post because propagation
>> problems still get down to one individual poster who cannot post
>> and who must find out why not.
>
> No. It is *not neccessarily* limited to one individual poster.
> That's why I said "multiple posters, articles, groups, servers,
> etc.".
'Test' messages are *necessarily* limited to one individual poster, I
know of no newsreader that allows posting by committee. ;-)
See your own comments below, notice your "the person" and "the
'tester'":
> Agreed, *BUT* - *as I said* - the person posting the test
> message (the 'tester') can be - and often is - someone *other* than
> the person having a posting problem (the 'poster_with_trouble'). In
> that case, the tester/ trouble_shooter *will* - as I've been saying
> all this time - have to post a test message to a non-test group (i.e.
> to nsr or news.* in my example).
No, not at all. As a matter of fact I've seen messages on Cox
newsgroups from technicians troubleshooting server problems, they are
NEVER 'test' messages, they are messages explaining the problem and
what is being done to fix it.
> Of course the tester *can* *label/'disguise'* the message in
> some other way (i.e. "Subject: ... propagation problem ..."), but it
> *is* a test message to a non-test group, hence your "NEVER"
> condition is false.
The NEVER condition remains true, of course. If it's not a test
message, it's not a test message, that should be obvious, right(?) and
more importantly, it's not a violation of netiquette.
Give it up, Frank, you're arguing just for the sake of arguing and
you're wrong as always. <G>
Frank Slootweg
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> <more of Frank's irrelevancies snipped>
>
> Frank, I completely fail to understand your problem.
Thanks. That's much, much better! Now you realize that there is/
might_be a problem with communication/understanding. And indeed there
*is*:
First re-read my:
> >> because if one is having propagation
============================
> > > problems with this hierarchy (news.*) or a group in this hierarchy
========
> > > (news.software.readers), one has no option *but* to post to a non-test
> > > group, because (as I mentioned), there *is* no (news.) test group.
and
> BTW, you *do* understand what "propagation problems" means, don't you?
> (No, it does *not* mean that some poster "wants to see if his/her/its
=====================================================================
> messages are getting through".)
============================
and now re-read your:
> For your convenience, here it is with only one modification, I've
> changed "HEMI-Powered" to "anyone" because it applies to "anyone", not
> to any one poster.
>
> =============================================================
> There's NEVER a reason to send a "test" message to a non-test
> group. If anyone wants to see if his/her/its messages are
> getting through, just send the dang message, OK?
> =============================================================
I said "some poster" for the same reason you said "anyone".
So my exception is *not* "anyone wants to see if *his/her/its* messages
are getting through" (emphasis mine), but "one is having *propagation
problems*" (emphasis mine).
"propagation problems" is *not* the same as "anyone wants to see if
his/her/its messages are getting through". The latter is just about
*one* *poster* having problems. The former is about *articles* not
getting through. It *can* be limited to one poster and then it's *your*
case (*with the addition* that the poster_with_trouble and the tester
don't have to be one and the same person). But it *can* and often is
much wider (multiple posters, articles, groups, servers, etc.) and that
is *my* case.
So the conclusion is that you misunderstood what I meant with
"propagation problems". Misunderstandings happen all the time, but
stamping of feet and not asking questions even when invited to do so,
does very little to resolve misunderstandings.
[...]
> That's the end of this discussion.
That's fine with me. But feel free to continue, ask for clarification,
etc..
Frank Slootweg
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > [See also my response to Mike Easter's questions.]
> >
> > XS11E <xs...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >> And *still* covered by my original post because propagation
> >> problems still get down to one individual poster who cannot post
> >> and who must find out why not.
> >
> > No. It is *not neccessarily* limited to one individual poster.
> > That's why I said "multiple posters, articles, groups, servers,
> > etc.".
>
> 'Test' messages are *necessarily* limited to one individual poster, I
> know of no newsreader that allows posting by committee. ;-)
Of course, but my quote came from this paragraph:
> > > "propagation problems" is *not* the same as "anyone wants to see
> > > if his/her/its messages are getting through". The latter is just
> > > about *one* *poster* having problems. The former is about
> > > *articles* not getting through. It *can* be limited to one poster
> > > and then it's *your* case (*with the addition* that the
> > > poster_with_trouble and the tester don't have to be one and the
> > > same person). But it *can* and often is much wider (multiple
> > > posters, articles, groups, servers, etc.) and that is *my* case.
So I was saying that *propagation problems* are not (neccessarily)
limited to one individual poster.
> See your own comments below, notice your "the person" and "the
> 'tester'":
>
> > Agreed, *BUT* - *as I said* - the person posting the test
> > message (the 'tester') can be - and often is - someone *other* than
> > the person having a posting problem (the 'poster_with_trouble'). In
> > that case, the tester/ trouble_shooter *will* - as I've been saying
> > all this time - have to post a test message to a non-test group (i.e.
> > to nsr or news.* in my example).
>
> No, not at all. As a matter of fact I've seen messages on Cox
> newsgroups from technicians troubleshooting server problems, they are
> NEVER 'test' messages, they are messages explaining the problem and
> what is being done to fix it.
If they are *only* "explaining the problem what is being done to fix
it", the they are indeed not test messages, but if they are (also) used
for "troubleshooting server problems", then they *are* (also) test
messages. Sometimes this latter category of messages are neccessary and
no stamping of feet is going to change that.
> > Of course the tester *can* *label/'disguise'* the message in
> > some other way (i.e. "Subject: ... propagation problem ..."), but it
> > *is* a test message to a non-test group, hence your "NEVER"
> > condition is false.
>
> The NEVER condition remains true, of course. If it's not a test
> message, it's not a test message, that should be obvious, right(?) and
> more importantly, it's not a violation of netiquette.
So what *is* "a test message"? Do you guys only get your knickers in a
knot if someone says "test" (or in this (OP) case "Just testing ..."),
but saying something like "I'm troubleshooting a propagation problem
..." is perfectly fine (while it *is* a test message, i.e. a message
which is used to perform a test)?
> Give it up, Frank, you're arguing just for the sake of arguing and
> you're wrong as always. <G>
No, it's just your usual egocentricity, which appparently makes it
impossible for you to see beyond *your own* needs/little_world.
In closing a question: Exactly how many real News servers have *you*
professionally managed for how many decades, and how many propagation
problems did you troubleshoot for your users, other users, your peers,
other peers, etc.?
XS11E
<snipped all of Frank's irrelavancies and idiocy.
> In closing a question: Exactly how many real News servers have
> *you* professionally managed for how many decades, and how many
> propagation problems did you troubleshoot for your users, other
> users, your peers, other peers, etc.?
Completely irrevent but I'll ask you a question that IS relevant:
Exactly how many test messages have you seen that have been sent by
other than an individual?
Didn't think so.
Give it up, Frank, you're arguing just to be arguing, you lost the
argument with your very first post in the thread.
Oh, and one more thing:
<plonk>
I've no more time for your stupidity.
Mike Yetto
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
><snipped all of Frank's irrelavancies and idiocy.
>
>> In closing a question: Exactly how many real News servers have
>> *you* professionally managed for how many decades, and how many
>> propagation problems did you troubleshoot for your users, other
>> users, your peers, other peers, etc.?
>
> Completely irrevent but I'll ask you a question that IS relevant:
>
> Exactly how many test messages have you seen that have been sent by
> other than an individual?
>
> Didn't think so.
>
> Give it up, Frank, you're arguing just to be arguing, you lost the
> argument with your very first post in the thread.
>
> Oh, and one more thing:
><plonk>
> I've no more time for your stupidity.
>
But, but...
Now when Frank tells you what you really meant by, well anything
you post, you'll miss it entirely.
Mike "you might not miss it, but you won't see it" Yetto
--
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas.
- William of Ockham
Frank Slootweg
> Bada bing XS11E <xs...@mailinator.com> bada bang:
> > Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >
> ><snipped all of Frank's irrelavancies and idiocy.
> >
> >> In closing a question: Exactly how many real News servers have
> >> *you* professionally managed for how many decades, and how many
> >> propagation problems did you troubleshoot for your users, other
> >> users, your peers, other peers, etc.?
> >
> > Completely irrevent but I'll ask you a question that IS relevant:
> >
> > Exactly how many test messages have you seen that have been sent by
> > other than an individual?
> >
> > Didn't think so.
> >
> > Give it up, Frank, you're arguing just to be arguing, you lost the
> > argument with your very first post in the thread.
> >
> > Oh, and one more thing:
> ><plonk>
> > I've no more time for your stupidity.
> >
>
> But, but...
>
> Now when Frank tells you what you really meant by, well anything
> you post, you'll miss it entirely.
I'm glad to see that the rock wasn't too heavy for you!
> Mike "you might not miss it, but you won't see it" Yetto
You may want to give some tips to Blinky, because he still sees what
he (claims he) doesn't want to see.