Mozilla 1.4 IS THERE NO SPELLCHECK?
Milty
I am using Mozilla as my primary mail and newsgroup client. Everything is
going along fine EXEPT that I cannot find any spellcheck capabilities. Are
they there?
How do I get to the spellchecker?
PLEASE advise.
Thanks!
MV
Christopher Jahn
http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/faq/mail-news.html#3.9
--
Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org
Netscape 6/7 Tips: http://www.holgermetzger.de/net6e.html
Netscape 6 FAQ: http://home.adelphia.net/~sremick/ns6faq.html
Netscape 7 Help/Tips: http://techaholic.net/ns7.html
Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
Mike C.
Go to: http://spellchecker.mozdev.org/installation.html
It's easy. Just pick the correct Mozilla version.
MIKE C.
Peter Lairo
> How do I get to the spellchecker?
Please read my signature...
--
Peter Lairo
This is a *developer* newsgroup. For end-user discussion and peer
support please go to:
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.general (make
sure "SSL" is enabled)
Posting Rulz: http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html#conventions
Mozilla FAQ: http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/faq/
Milty
Peter - your message and info is not very useful - it just brushes me off
and sends me away. Thank God there are folks like Mike and Christopher.
Milty
"Mike C." <rp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bgsddh$5k...@ripley.netscape.com...
Peter Lairo
> THANK YOU very much - to Christopher and Mike.
>
> Peter - your message and info is not very useful - it just brushes me off
> and sends me away. Thank God there are folks like Mike and Christopher.
Actually, my information was *very* useful, as it pointed you to the
particular and approriate place where you *could* get your answer. My
message also doesn't "brush you off" and "send you away" because it sent
you to a *particular* place where your question would be appropriate. ;)
PS. Actually, what Mike and Christopher have done is encouraged you and
others to place *more questions* here, thus further damaging this
newsgroup as a productive work environment for the developers. If you
want to "credit" god for this, that's your decision. :-P
Jim Webster
> On 8/7/03 1:18 PM, Milty wrote:
>
>> THANK YOU very much - to Christopher and Mike.
>>
>> Peter - your message and info is not very useful - it just brushes me off
>> and sends me away. Thank God there are folks like Mike and Christopher.
>
>
> Actually, my information was *very* useful, as it pointed you to the
> particular and approriate place where you *could* get your answer. My
> message also doesn't "brush you off" and "send you away" because it sent
> you to a *particular* place where your question would be appropriate. ;)
>
> PS. Actually, what Mike and Christopher have done is encouraged you and
> others to place *more questions* here, thus further damaging this
> newsgroup as a productive work environment for the developers. If you
> want to "credit" god for this, that's your decision. :-P
This is a *developer* newsgroup. For end-user discussion and peer
jo...@soccer.com
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 10:52:17 +0200, Peter Lairo <Pe...@Lairo.com>
wrote:
Peter Lairo
> Heeeeere's Peter!!
"Jock", please read http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html
Particularly: "Be civil" and "No anonymous messages" ;)
patrick606458
wrong Peter: You and others involved in the mozilla do not own this
newsgroup, it is shared and owned by the many 100's of newsgroup
servers. It is called netscape.public.mozilla.general - meaning general
questions about Mozilla should be posted here. Also many people can not
access secured newsgroups because of various reasons.
Mozilla has their own mailing list for developers. Start treating people
nicely instead of brushing them off.
Pascal Chevrel
Get your facts straight before making such statements :
"Public but not for end users
All newsgroups hosted by mozilla.org are for developers only. Use
forums listed on the Mozilla 1.0 support page for user support.
Please do not complain about the word public in newsgroup names.
The word was originally used to remind Netscape staff that these forums
are open to the general public. It was an unfortunate choice that most
developers have no control over. Don't start arguing about the name when
you are directed to other forums.."
Pascal
--
FAQ Mozilla/Netscape 7 en franēais : http://pascal.chevrel.free.fr/
Drag me, drop me, treat me like an object
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
> FAQ Mozilla/Netscape 7 en français : http://pascal.chevrel.free.fr/
> Drag me, drop me, treat me like an object
Public means Public. Your definition indicates it is a "Private network".
Public means that whatever is named public is open to the public at large.
Read your dictionary.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va |pjo...@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
24112-1809
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm>
<http://vpea.exis.net>
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Re-Ready Pascal's reply. He did not define it as a private network at
all. Being open to the public in this venue means for VIEWING, not
POSTING, this has been explained over an over ad nauseum. It could have
very well been a closed, authentication-required server.
While he's reading the dictionary, you read the Mozilla Posting
guidelines for a change.
--
Jay Garcia - Always A Netscape Champion
The UFAQ Lives - http://www.UFAQ.org
Posting Etiquette: http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html
Mozilla End-User Groups: Port 563 and enable SSL
snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.mozilla.user.win32
snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.mozilla.user.mac
snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.mozilla.user.unix
snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.mozilla.user.general
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
As Pascal mentioned .. and ..
You are not correct. This is a PRIVATE server owned at the moment by AOL
and is physically located in Mountain View, CA. The general public has
been able to access this server by "open invitation" (usenet feed) and
not by any public rights of posting or otherwise.
This "open invitation" can be revoked at any given time and revert to
"access by authentication only" at the flick of a mouse click.
And, what *reason* can't users access the secure server? I can't think
of a single modern-day news reader at the moment that can't. Those that
don't have native SSL capabilities built in can use a tunnel app such as
Stunnel found at http://www.stunnel.org .. I can access the secure
server with Xnews and Forte Agent (free and otherwise), neither of which
has built-in SSL.
As far as "Peter" is concerned, he is a valuable member and has been
accused of being "human" now and again .. !! ;-)
patrick606458
it is also not hosted by mozilla.org but by 100's of independent nntp
servers. If Mozilla.org totally shut down tomorrow, this NG would still
exist throughout the world just as it does now.
Please learn how usenet works.
--
Cheers,
Patrick
patrick606458
> On 08.08.03 15:48, patrick606458 wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>
>>Peter Lairo wrote:
>>
>>wrong Peter: You and others involved in the mozilla do not own this
>>newsgroup, it is shared and owned by the many 100's of newsgroup
>>servers. It is called netscape.public.mozilla.general - meaning general
>>questions about Mozilla should be posted here. Also many people can not
>>access secured newsgroups because of various reasons.
>>
>>Mozilla has their own mailing list for developers. Start treating people
>>nicely instead of brushing them off.
>>
>
>
> As Pascal mentioned .. and ..
>
> You are not correct. This is a PRIVATE server owned at the moment by AOL
> and is physically located in Mountain View, CA. The general public has
> been able to access this server by "open invitation" (usenet feed) and
> not by any public rights of posting or otherwise.
>
> This "open invitation" can be revoked at any given time and revert to
> "access by authentication only" at the flick of a mouse click.
>
Nope. You are totally wrong Jay Garcia. Please learn how usenet works.
If mozilla.org went under tomorrow, this ng would continue 100%.
You are are confusing secnews.netscape.com with this ng. Has nothing to
do with one another.
--
Cheers,
Patrick
patrick606458
> Le 08/08/2003 22:48, patrick606458 a écrit :
>
>> Peter Lairo wrote:
>>
>> wrong Peter: You and others involved in the mozilla do not own this
>> newsgroup, it is shared and owned by the many 100's of newsgroup
>> servers. It is called netscape.public.mozilla.general - meaning
>> general questions about Mozilla should be posted here. Also many
>> people can not access secured newsgroups because of various reasons.
>>
>> Mozilla has their own mailing list for developers. Start treating
>> people nicely instead of brushing them off.
>>
>
> Get your facts straight before making such statements :
>
> "Public but not for end users
>
> All newsgroups hosted by mozilla.org are for developers only. Use
> forums listed on the Mozilla 1.0 support page for user support.
This NG is not hosted by mozilla.org. Again, you need to learn how
usenet works. It is hosted by 100's of servers. It is you who needs to
learn what they are talking about.
--
Cheers,
Patrick
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> This NG is not hosted by mozilla.org. Again, you need to learn how
> usenet works. It is hosted by 100's of servers. It is you who needs to
> learn what they are talking about.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Patrick
Yes, it IS hosted by Mozilla.org but propagates to and from usenet. If I
flip the switch, actually a checkbox in the software, the feed will
cease and posts made to THIS server will no longer be fed to usenet nor
will posts to usenet be picked up by this server. Then, it will be 100%
private, not usenet and the only way to post/read/reply will be to
actually log on to THIS server, simple as that. What is it that you
don't understand about all this, no offense intended.
BTW: These groups - news.mozilla.org/n.p.m.* are on the same physical
server as the secure groups - secnews.netscape.com .. ;-)
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
As co-server admin, I am not wrong. This is a private server hosted by
AOL / Mozilla.org under the primary administrative duties of Markus
Bauer at Mountain View, CA. How long this will be the case is a "who
knows" situation and subject to change at any given moment.
Posts made to THIS server (n.p.m.*) are fed to usenet, yes, this is
true. Posts made to your (collectively) ISP's NNTP server via usenet are
fed to this server as well. Doesn't take "rocket science" to figure this
out.
However, if THIS server were to cease functioning for whatever reason or
transgress to access by authentication, it will no longer be fed to
usenet or receive posts from usenet. The two-way feed can simply be
disabled. However, like you say, the group FWIW will survive, continue
to propagate and will no longer be under the control of Mozilla.org and
for all practical purposes become uninhabited, no longer viable, lose
its effectiveness and become a total waste.
And, seeing as how this, et al groups are "hosted" on this server, are
governed by the guidelines of Mozilla.org ... <period>
No offense, but I think you need to learn the difference between usenet,
private NNTP servers and hosting of groups on private servers fed
to/from usenet.
BTW: The groups on the secure server (secnews) at one time were picked
up by Google. No longer the case for almost a year now.
If you disagree that's fine, we'll agree to disagree. But please, don't
try to tell us how to run our server, thanks.
jo...@soccer.com
Thank you, Patrick. Keep up the fight. There's an attitude here of
exclusivity when fortunately these "users" have to learn these news
groups are open and public.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Ok, let's try to put this all in the proper perspective whilst at the
same time not slinging insults at one another ...
Yes, these groups are fed to usenet as well as picking up the feed
"from" usenet. Posts made to usenet via your ISP's feed are picked by
this server. Posts made while logged on to this server are fed to usenet
and you are able to read them.
I think where the confusion comes from is an understanding of how usenet
works in conjunction with private servers that opt to feed to and from
usenet. This is such a server, a private one located in Mountain View,
CA. in the former "Netscape" building.
If I decided for whatever reason to discontinue the feed to/from usenet,
all I have to is UNcheck the box in the software to "enable/disable
usenet feed" and POOF, it goes away so to speak. The usenet group(s)
will continue to survive simply by the way usenet propagation works.
However, posts made by those who actually log on to the private server,
will no longer be propagated to usenet and hence posts made on your own
ISP's system will no longer be picked up the private server. The usenet
groups then become basically useless.
I am NOT trying to be condescending in any way shape or form, just
trying to explain how this works.
Yes, you can READ these groups and yes, you CAN post to these groups.
However, we have made it known that these groups are for developer
posting ONLY and we expect, out of courtesey and net-etiquettte, that
these guidelines be followed.
The secure server (software) (secnews.netscape.com) is hosted on this
physical server as well.
Ron Hunter
Conclusion without support. It is your opinion that without certain
people involved it would be a total waste. I disagree. As long as
there are people on it who give aid and information, it might be less
effective as a developer forum, but would NOT be a total waste.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Conclusion without support. It is your opinion that without certain
> people involved it would be a total waste. I disagree. As long as
> there are people on it who give aid and information, it might be less
> effective as a developer forum, but would NOT be a total waste.
You're probably correct as far as this particular group is concerned as
developers don't hold this one in any esteem whatsoever AFAIK. Nothing
but the usual US bashing, food/wine/beer talk, arguments ad nauseum.
Therefore, IMHO, total OT waste. ;-)
Christopher Jahn
> Pascal Chevrel wrote:
>> Le 08/08/2003 22:48, patrick606458 a écrit :
>>
>>> Peter Lairo wrote:
>>>
>>> wrong Peter: You and others involved in the mozilla do
>>> not own this newsgroup, it is shared and owned by the
>>> many 100's of newsgroup servers. It is called
>>> netscape.public.mozilla.general - meaning general
>>> questions about Mozilla should be posted here. Also many
>>> people can not access secured newsgroups because of
>>> various reasons.
>>>
>>> Mozilla has their own mailing list for developers. Start
>>> treating people nicely instead of brushing them off.
>>>
>>
>> Get your facts straight before making such statements :
>>
>> "Public but not for end users
>>
>> All newsgroups hosted by mozilla.org are for
>> developers only. Use
>> forums listed on the Mozilla 1.0 support page for user
>> support.
>
> This NG is not hosted by mozilla.org.
Actually, it is.
It is the primary server: it's where the group was created, and
it's even where the bulk of posters connect.
However, there are now other servers that host the group. and it
is now, unfortunately, connected to Usenet.
daa
> Mozilla has their own mailing list for developers. Start treating people
> nicely instead of brushing them off.
>
wrong - the mozilla mailing lists are just reflectors of the
netscape.public.mozilla.* newsgroups
there are newsgroups and mailinglists ( same content) , IRC channels on
irc.mozilla.org and the use of NS/AOL IM and of course
bugzilla.mozilla.org and direct email between developers
dave
James Blanford
Jay Garcia <Moz...@Netscape.NOSPAM.JayGarcia.com> writes:
> On 08.08.03 20:26, patrick606458 wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> This NG is not hosted by mozilla.org. Again, you need to learn how
>> usenet works. It is hosted by 100's of servers. It is you who needs to
>> learn what they are talking about.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Patrick
>
> Yes, it IS hosted by Mozilla.org but propagates to and from usenet. If I
> flip the switch, actually a checkbox in the software, the feed will
> cease and posts made to THIS server will no longer be fed to usenet nor
> will posts to usenet be picked up by this server. Then, it will be 100%
> private, not usenet and the only way to post/read/reply will be to
> actually log on to THIS server, simple as that. What is it that you
> don't understand about all this, no offense intended.
>
private news group - for crying out loud do it! I post to my ISP's
server according to my ISP's rules. All your bullying and whining means
zilch. This message was not posted on your server. If you don't want
it on your server, then stop coming to my private server, which I pay
for access to, and getting it.
Thank you for settling this - flip your switch now and go away, so the
rest of us can enjoy this newsgroup in peace.
- Jim
James Blanford
Jay Garcia <Moz...@Netscape.NOSPAM.JayGarcia.com> writes:
>
> If I decided for whatever reason to discontinue the feed to/from usenet,
> all I have to is UNcheck the box in the software to "enable/disable
> usenet feed" and POOF, it goes away so to speak. The usenet group(s)
> will continue to survive simply by the way usenet propagation works.
>
have your little private newsgroup. That should be wonderful for you.
I can't figure out why you've waited so long. I'd do it, but I can't.
I don't have a little check box. Please, if you don't want my
posts appearing on your server, stop coming to my server and picking
them up.
Thank you. I'm glad we've finally resolved this.
- Jim
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Please understand, I am not the ONE that's whining, just explaining the
facts.
Since Mozilla is "Open Source" and contributors are welcomed from the
"public domain" then so must the news groups be open to the same
"public" so to speak to discuss developer issues, etc., without having
to resort to an authentication method for access.
How many "developers" that you know access and post to the Microsoft
News Groups on msnews.microsoft.com? MS is not open-source, there are no
public domain programmers/developers that I know of.
Since these groups are hosted on the Mozilla server and fed to and from
usenet which means that every post made to usenet via other servers
winds up on our server, we simply ask that our guidelines be met out of
courtesy and etiquette. Sorry that you find that request to be
"bullying" and "whining".
James Blanford
No authentication would be needed unless you required it. All they
would have to do is point their news agent to the mozilla.org server.
And if you do require some sort of authentication, I hardly see that as
any significant barrier to access. I've accessed your secured news
server. As folks here repeat often, it's easy and can be done with all
news agents. If they are developers and contributors to the mozilla
project, then it would be expected that they would go to a mozilla.org
server to participate. I, however, choose not to access mozilla.org's
(actually AOL-TW's) news server for my own reasons.
> Since these groups are hosted on the Mozilla server and fed to and from
> usenet which means that every post made to usenet via other servers
> winds up on our server, we simply ask that our guidelines be met out of
> courtesy and etiquette. Sorry that you find that request to be
> "bullying" and "whining".
>
According to the terms and conditions of my ISP, the appropriate
etiquette for a newsgroup is described in the OFFICIAL FAQ, found
(or in the case of this newsgroup - not found) at www.faqs.org and
the CHARTER dating from the formation of the news group. I have
repeatedly posted requests to this newsgroup and to the news server
administrator at AOL-TW for those documents. They are not forthcoming.
When people try to gain control by making up rules and trying to force
them on others, I call that "bullying". When people have the power to
resolve situations, as you claim to, but go on talking instead, I call
that "whining".
I'm calling your bluff. Uncheck that box and kill the feed. Maybe
you're right and all we free speech supporters will end up with a
useless newsgroup and will come crawling back, begging for forgiveness
and access. Have your private newsgroup and use it for what you want,
please.
- Jim
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Ok, lets put this in more basic and hopefully easier to understand terms.
These groups were created and are hosted on a server located physically
at Netscape headquarters in Mountain View, Ca. (for the moment anyway).
"news.mozilla.org" and "secnews.netscape.com" are aliases.
News.mozilla.org is the only one with a usenet feed.
Let's toss out, for argument sake, the "developer only" stuff, etc.
When you post to n.p.mozilla.general, you're posting to our server.
You're being invited in to our "house". When you do so, all we ask is
that you scrape the mud off your shoes, don't re-arrange the furniture
and be a cordial "guest".
[secnews.netscape.com]
Translated Name: ripley.aoltw.net
IP Address: 204.29.187.156
Alias: secnews.netscape.com
Alias: secnews.aoltw.net
[news.mozilla.org]
Translated Name: ripley.aoltw.net
IP Address: 204.29.187.156
Alias: news.mozilla.org
Alias: moznews.aoltw.net
Michael Lefevre
[snip]
> Ok, lets put this in more basic and hopefully easier to understand terms.
>
> When you post to n.p.mozilla.general, you're posting to our server.
But now you've oversimplified it to the point of being wrong (actually you
made things sound wrong in your first post too, which is partly why there
are arguments). When I post to n.p.mozilla.general, I'm not posting to
the Netscape server, I'm posting to a local server - the post probably
goes through a bunch of other servers before it ends up on the Netscape
server, and whatever happens on the Netscape server, that will carry on
happening.
> You're being invited in to our "house". When you do so, all we ask is
> that you scrape the mud off your shoes, don't re-arrange the furniture
> and be a cordial "guest".
Indeed, but those statements should be appled it to the _group_, whichever
server it happens to be on for the poster/reader. The fact that you don't
(nobody does) actually have much control over the group when it's not on
the Netscape server shouldn't need to be part of this, it just confuses
the issue...
--
Michael
Ed Mullen
As usual, well and politely said, Jay. And this paragraph above seems
to me to be the essence of this whole prolonged misunderstanding. It
is, in essence, like a real estate open-house. "The public is welcome
to attend. But, please observe the rules of the house. If not, we
understand and respect your right to want to act in a way contrary to
the rules. But if you persist you are no longer welcome. We
respectfully ask you to please leave. Oh, and any time you'd like to
join the community as a member abiding by the rules, we will welcome you
back."
You get the "Patience in face of provocation" award of the month, Jay. ;-)
>
> [secnews.netscape.com]
> Translated Name: ripley.aoltw.net
> IP Address: 204.29.187.156
> Alias: secnews.netscape.com
> Alias: secnews.aoltw.net
>
> [news.mozilla.org]
> Translated Name: ripley.aoltw.net
> IP Address: 204.29.187.156
> Alias: news.mozilla.org
> Alias: moznews.aoltw.net
>
>
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/moz.html
PLEASE READ: http://edmullen.net/moz.html#moznews
Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
When you post to your server, you're posting to usenet via your ISP's
news feed, after which the post is picked up by the Mozilla server
because of the feed on the Mozilla server.
I'm not wrong, not being understood maybe. I post to the Mozilla server,
not my ISP's. Your post is read by me, et al, by way of being logged in
to the Mozilla server. Since Mozilla is the parent that spawned the
groups, the reader is coming in to our house and should abide by the
"community guidelines". That's the point I'm trying to get across.
Otherwise, what's the point of the community guidelines posted on
mozilla.org?
I think this discussion has gotten out of hand by a lack of
understanding, confusing or not, of how usenet works in relation to
hosting severs, ISP feeds and single-server-access.
Michael Lefevre
> On 09.08.03 14:15, Michael Lefevre wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> In article <bh3csc$9n...@ripley.netscape.com>, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Ok, lets put this in more basic and hopefully easier to understand terms.
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> When you post to n.p.mozilla.general, you're posting to our server.
>>
>> But now you've oversimplified it to the point of being wrong
[snip]
> news feed, after which the post is picked up by the Mozilla server
> because of the feed on the Mozilla server.
> I'm not wrong, not being understood maybe. I post to the Mozilla server,
> not my ISP's. Your post is read by me, et al, by way of being logged in
> to the Mozilla server.
Indeed. So I'm not actually posting to that server, although the post
generally gets there eventually, so I'd say that saying "you're posting to
our server" isn't right... but this is a pointless argument which I wasn't
intending to continue :)
> Since Mozilla is the parent that spawned the
> groups, the reader is coming in to our house and should abide by the
> "community guidelines". That's the point I'm trying to get across.
And that is a good point.
> I think this discussion has gotten out of hand by a lack of
> understanding, confusing or not, of how usenet works in relation to
> hosting severs, ISP feeds and single-server-access.
Indeed. But (and I could be wrong), I think it was you that brought the
issue of the Netscape server into things... my point was that people
should follow the group protocol without needing to consider which server
they're reading/posting with and who has control of it :)
--
Michael
Harvey Maron
"Jay Garcia" <Moz...@Netscape.NOSPAM.JayGarcia.com> wrote in message
news:bh3csc$9n...@ripley.netscape.com...
Regardless as to who is right or wrong it is this attitude that will make
Mozilla a dead end. Netscape has become a very slow changing monolithic
sloth. The attitude of the developers sends potential users to more friendly
areas.
Eventually Mozilla can become a private toy for the elite favored few
DEVELOPERS[ aren't we great and mighty].
Take a lesson from Kmeleon and change your attitude or go the way of the
wooly mammoth.
Harvey Maron
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>> I'm not wrong, not being understood maybe. I post to the Mozilla server,
>> not my ISP's. Your post is read by me, et al, by way of being logged in
>> to the Mozilla server.
>
> Indeed. So I'm not actually posting to that server, although the post
> generally gets there eventually, so I'd say that saying "you're posting to
> our server" isn't right... but this is a pointless argument which I wasn't
> intending to continue :)
Ok ok, I'll admit I should have been more clear when saying "posting to
our server". I should have said that posting to n.p.m.* no matter how,
it gets posted to the group on our server. Sorry to all for the confusion.
>> Since Mozilla is the parent that spawned the
>> groups, the reader is coming in to our house and should abide by the
>> "community guidelines". That's the point I'm trying to get across.
>
> And that is a good point.
Yes, thanks Michael.
patrick606458
>
> I'm calling your bluff. Uncheck that box and kill the feed. Maybe
> you're right and all we free speech supporters will end up with a
> useless newsgroup and will come crawling back, begging for forgiveness
> and access. Have your private newsgroup and use it for what you want,
> please.
>
> - Jim
The newsgroup would continue to function as normal except for those who
access via the mozilla news server.
Jay Garcia has zero idea what he is talking about.
Cheers,
Patrick
patrick606458
>>
>
>
> When you post to your server, you're posting to usenet via your ISP's
> news feed, after which the post is picked up by the Mozilla server
> because of the feed on the Mozilla server.
wrong. it is picked up by 100's of servers, which mozilla is merely one
of them. The group would survive 100% without mozilla newsfeed except
for those who access using the mozilla news server.
But prove us wrong, Jay. Pull the group. You can't can you?
Jay, admit for once in your life, you don't know what you are talking about.
Cheers,
patrick
patrick606458
> And it came to pass that patrick606458 wrote:
>
>
>>Pascal Chevrel wrote:
>>
>>>Le 08/08/2003 22:48, patrick606458 a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>Peter Lairo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>wrong Peter: You and others involved in the mozilla do
>>>>not own this newsgroup, it is shared and owned by the
>>>>many 100's of newsgroup servers. It is called
>>>>netscape.public.mozilla.general - meaning general
>>>>questions about Mozilla should be posted here. Also many
>>>>people can not access secured newsgroups because of
>>>>various reasons.
>>>>
>>>>Mozilla has their own mailing list for developers. Start
>>>>treating people nicely instead of brushing them off.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Get your facts straight before making such statements :
>>>
>>>"Public but not for end users
>>>
>>> All newsgroups hosted by mozilla.org are for
>>> developers only. Use
>>>forums listed on the Mozilla 1.0 support page for user
>>>support.
>>
>>This NG is not hosted by mozilla.org.
>
>
> Actually, it is.
>
> It is the primary server: it's where the group was created, and
> it's even where the bulk of posters connect.
>
Wrong. checking out the headers, only a few in here connect with the
mozilla server, the majority do not connect via the mozilla news server.
If the mozilla news server goes down, this group functions to everyone
except the ones who access it via the mozilla news server.
> However, there are now other servers that host the group. and it
> is now, unfortunately, connected to Usenet.
100's of other servers to be exact. yup, if mozilla server goes down,
the group survives totally except for those who access it via the
mozilla news server. It is how it was meant to be set up.
Please tell this simple fact to Jay Garcia. He fails to grasp the
concept. If he would only admit he is wrong on this issue, we can move
forward.
Cheers,
Patrick
Ed Mullen
Sigh. Jay. Go ahead. Click the check box. Take the damned thing
offline for a week. Then let's check back and see how things are doing.
It might be an instructive lesson. Well, nah, probably won't convince
anyone of anything, never mind. Instead, make it a month, then we'll
revisit it. ;-)
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/moz.html
PLEASE READ: http://edmullen.net/moz.html#moznews
"There is no reason for people to have computers in their homes." - Ken
Olsen, president of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> patrick606458 wrote:
>
>>>I'm calling your bluff. Uncheck that box and kill the feed. Maybe
>>>you're right and all we free speech supporters will end up with a
>>>useless newsgroup and will come crawling back, begging for forgiveness
>>>and access. Have your private newsgroup and use it for what you want,
>>>please.
>>>
>>> - Jim
>>
>>
>> The newsgroup would continue to function as normal except for those who
>> access via the mozilla news server.
>>
>> Jay Garcia has zero idea what he is talking about.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Patrick
>>
>
> Sigh. Jay. Go ahead. Click the check box. Take the damned thing
> offline for a week. Then let's check back and see how things are doing.
> It might be an instructive lesson. Well, nah, probably won't convince
> anyone of anything, never mind. Instead, make it a month, then we'll
> revisit it. ;-)
>
Cool thought ....
However, it may happen anyways as I have no idea what the immediate
future holds for this server and the secnews server. They're on the same
box ya know and still located in the now "vacant?" Netscape building. :-(
My "guess" is that this server will wind up at Mozilla Foundation's
physical location wherever that'll be .
--
Jay Garcia - Always A Netscape Champion
The UFAQ Lives - http://www.UFAQ.org
Posting Etiquette: http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html
Mozilla End-User Groups: Port 563 and enable SSL
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.win32
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.mac
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.unix
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.general
CG
> Please tell this simple fact to Jay Garcia. He fails to grasp the
> concept. If he would only admit he is wrong on this issue, we can move
> forward.
>
> Cheers,
> Patrick
>
This is what Jay replied to Phillip Jones and I quote:
<quote>
You are not correct. This is a PRIVATE server owned at the moment by AOL
and is physically located in Mountain View, CA. The general public has
been able to access this server by "open invitation" (usenet feed) and
not by any public rights of posting or otherwise.
This "open invitation" can be revoked at any given time and revert to
"access by authentication only" at the flick of a mouse click.
</quote>
To which you replied:
<quote>
Nope. You are totally wrong Jay Garcia. Please learn how usenet works.
If mozilla.org went under tomorrow, this ng would continue 100%.
You are are confusing secnews.netscape.com with this ng. Has nothing to
do with one another.
</quote>
Now, what is he totally wrong about? I don't see a mention from him
about Mozilla.org going down. I don't see a mention from him about the
groups continuing or not continuing 100%.
What he failed to mention or make clear is the role of the actual
physical server that hosts the groups and access to THAT server by
developers and users as well, irresective of usenet and the 100's of
servers picking up the feed. In other words, he didn't make clear enough
the actual separation of the physical server and usenet feed but rather
took it for granted that everybody with an IQ greater than 10 took that
in to consideration. I also don't see any reference by him concerning
the secure server. I'm not confused and neither is he. You are the one
that's confused about this whole mess and attempting to put words in his
mouth that were never spoken.
--
Chris Garcia
MCSE - Cisco/A+ Certified - Novell MCNE
Netscape/Mozilla FAQS - http://www.UFAQ.org
** Post To Group Only - No Email Please **
Christopher Jahn
> Wrong. checking out the headers, only a few in here connect
> with the mozilla server, the majority do not connect via
> the mozilla news server.
I did, and I came up with a majority of the regulars posting
directly to this server.
I don't count the users who shouldn't be posting here anywho.
Mike C.
> On 8/7/03 1:18 PM, Milty wrote:
>
>> THANK YOU very much - to Christopher and Mike.
>>
>> Peter - your message and info is not very useful - it just brushes me
>> off
>> and sends me away. Thank God there are folks like Mike and Christopher.
>
>
> Actually, my information was *very* useful, as it pointed you to the
> particular and approriate place where you *could* get your answer. My
> message also doesn't "brush you off" and "send you away" because it
> sent you to a *particular* place where your question would be
> appropriate. ;)
>
> PS. Actually, what Mike and Christopher have done is encouraged you
> and others to place *more questions* here, thus further damaging this
> newsgroup as a productive work environment for the developers. If you
> want to "credit" god for this, that's your decision. :-P
Do you guys realize there are about 45 time wasting replies to this
original message.
My original thought was to give a simple answer to a simple question and
that would be the end of it.
It seems like some on this newsgroup actually enjoy going on and on and
on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and
on.....................................................
Mike C.
Chris I
> Then why don't you do just that? I don't understand it. If you want a
> private news group - for crying out loud do it!
The whole point of open-source development is for the public to be able
to contribute to the development.
--
so...@ilias.ca
Netscape Links <http://ilias.ca>
Garth Wallace
The actual location of any server is irrelevant. The history of every
naming convention doesn't matter. What matters is *who is in charge*.
USENET is only the Big Seven hierarchies (comp, misc, news, rec, sci,
soc, talk). They share certain rules and regulations, for example
regarding the formation of new groups and the establishment of group
charters. Every other hierarchy is OUTSIDE of Usenet, and each has its
own rules and regulations.
These range from the anarchic ALT hierarchy (in which anyone can form a
group at any time for any purpose) to "semi-private" hierarchies like
microsoft.* and netscape.*. These "semi-private" hierarchies are under
the control of particular organizations, and other servers will defer to
that organization WRT that particular hierarchy: just as no server will
allow Joe Shmoe to found a "microsoft.sux" newsgroup in the microsoft.*
hierarchy without actual permission from Microsoft, Netscape is allowed
to name and charter groups within the hierarchy it runs however it sees fit.
If Netscape, within its own hierarchy, wants to define "public" as "not
just for Netscape employees", then that's fine. It's completely within
their rights, as the groups are "theirs". If they charter a group as
being "for developers", that's fine too...they "own" the hierarchy, they
say what goes. If you don't agree, you're free to form your own
competing alt group, like alt.mozilla.questions, or alt.mozilla.ranting,
or alt.mozilla.developers.are.big.fat.poopyheads.
I'd also like to bring up the difference between a newsgroup's title and
its topic. Say there's a group alt.tv.barney, dedicated to the
irritating/lovable/irritatingly lovable purple dinosaur. If somebody
goes in and starts talking about Barney the belching lout on The
Simpsons, they'd be considered offtopic, even though technically the
character's name is Barney and he's on TV. It doesn't matter what you
*think* a newsgroup *should* be about based on its title, only the
*actual topic* of the newsgroup is relevant.
Thank you, thank you. Please tip the waitresses.
--
Mozilla 1.0 Guide: http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/guide/
Mozilla 1.0 FAQ: http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/faq/
End-user discussion and peer support:
snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.mozilla.user.general
snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.mozilla.user.win32
snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.mozilla.user.mac
snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.mozilla.user.unix
(In some newsreaders you may have to specify port 563)
Karsten Düsterloh
> "semi-private" hierarchies like microsoft.* and netscape.*. These
> "semi-private" hierarchies are under the control of particular
> organizations, and other servers will defer to that organization WRT
> that particular hierarchy
So, since Mozilla(.org) is somewhat independent now, it could be a good
idea to start its own hierarchy mozilla.* and do things right[1].
The mess with user-flooded developer groups and user groups "hidden" on
a secnews server has been going on for (far) too long to be cleanable.
Karsten
[1] Maybe mozilla.support.{mailnews|browser|composer|misc} and
mozilla.dev.{the fine granulation we have in npm now}
--
Freiheit stirbt | Fsayannes SF&F-Bibliothek:
Mit Sicherheit | http://fsayanne.tprac.de/
Peter Lairo
> [1] Maybe mozilla.support.{mailnews|browser|composer|misc} and
You might want to change that to
mozilla.user.{general|mailnews|browser|composer|misc}
We don't want people claiming we *owe* them "support" because the term
is in the NG name. :-P
--
Peter Lairo
This is a *developer* newsgroup. For end-user discussion and peer
support please go to:
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.general (make
sure "SSL" is enabled)
Posting Rulz: http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html#conventions
Mozilla FAQ: http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/faq/
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> I think Jay is right, but his argument isn't sound.
Thanks, you're right on target, except fot the part about "isn't sound".
My problem explaining this was there was too much reading between the
lines that weren't there to begin with !! ;-)
--
Jay Garcia - Always A Netscape Champion
The UFAQ Lives - http://www.UFAQ.org
Posting Etiquette: http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html
Mozilla End-User Groups: Port 563 and enable SSL
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.win32
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Garth Wallace aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
>> "semi-private" hierarchies like microsoft.* and netscape.*. These
>> "semi-private" hierarchies are under the control of particular
>> organizations, and other servers will defer to that organization WRT
>> that particular hierarchy
>
> So, since Mozilla(.org) is somewhat independent now, it could be a good
> idea to start its own hierarchy mozilla.* and do things right[1].
> The mess with user-flooded developer groups and user groups "hidden" on
> a secnews server has been going on for (far) too long to be cleanable.
>
>
> Karsten
>
> [1] Maybe mozilla.support.{mailnews|browser|composer|misc} and
> mozilla.dev.{the fine granulation we have in npm now}
IMHO, there won't be a "secure" server in the long-range scheme of
things. I think it's days are numbered just like the demise of Netscape.
As soon as The Foundation is on solid ground, I think a lot of this will
be changing.
--
Jay Garcia - Always A Netscape Champion
The UFAQ Lives - http://www.UFAQ.org
Posting Etiquette: http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html
Mozilla End-User Groups: Port 563 and enable SSL
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.win32
Garth Wallace
> Garth Wallace aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
>
>>"semi-private" hierarchies like microsoft.* and netscape.*. These
>>"semi-private" hierarchies are under the control of particular
>>organizations, and other servers will defer to that organization WRT
>>that particular hierarchy
>
>
> So, since Mozilla(.org) is somewhat independent now, it could be a good
> idea to start its own hierarchy mozilla.* and do things right[1].
> The mess with user-flooded developer groups and user groups "hidden" on
> a secnews server has been going on for (far) too long to be cleanable.
>
> mozilla.dev.{the fine granulation we have in npm now}
Well, yeah. I'm certainly in favor of a new mozilla.* hierarchy with
names that make more sense to newbies. I really like the proposal that's
been floating around (for how long? Years...):
<http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt>, with one caveat: I think the
user groups in the new hierarchy should be divided by platform (Windows,
MacOS, Unix) rather than by component, as already people ask mailnews
questions in n.p.m.browser (under the mistaken assumption than the
entire suite is a "browser") and browser questions in n.p.m.mailnews
(under the mistaken assumption that it means "that's where news & mail
about Mozilla goes"), and I see no reason to believe that tendency will
go away.
Peter Lairo
> Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
>
>> [1] Maybe mozilla.support.{mailnews|browser|composer|misc} and
>> mozilla.dev.{the fine granulation we have in npm now}
>
>
> Well, yeah. I'm certainly in favor of a new mozilla.* hierarchy with
> names that make more sense to newbies. I really like the proposal that's
> been floating around (for how long? Years...):
> <http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt>, with one caveat: I think the
> user groups in the new hierarchy should be divided by platform (Windows,
> MacOS, Unix) rather than by component, as already people ask mailnews
> questions in n.p.m.browser (under the mistaken assumption than the
> entire suite is a "browser") and browser questions in n.p.m.mailnews
> (under the mistaken assumption that it means "that's where news & mail
> about Mozilla goes"), and I see no reason to believe that tendency will
> go away.
I disagree. This would relegate users of less used OSs to "ghost-town"
newsgroups where support is nigh impossible to come by.
Most n00bs will go to "general" anyhow. And additional NGs for "browser"
and "mail-news" seem pretty much *clear enough* to me. :)
Peter Lairo
> On 12.08.03 03:46, Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
>
>>[1] Maybe mozilla.support.{mailnews|browser|composer|misc} and
>> mozilla.dev.{the fine granulation we have in npm now}
>
> IMHO, there won't be a "secure" server in the long-range scheme of
> things. I think it's days are numbered just like the demise of Netscape.
> As soon as The Foundation is on solid ground, I think a lot of this will
> be changing.
Why not? A secure server helps prevent e-mail address harvesting by
spammers.
What are the disadvantages of a secure server? (I think the instructions
in my sig are pretty adequate and concise enough to rule out setting it
up being too difficult to explain to n00bs.)
Isn't setting up a secure server *negligibly* more difficult (i.e.,
"flipping a switch") than a non-secure server?
Michael Lefevre
> On 8/12/03 5:40 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 12.08.03 03:46, Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
>>
>>>[1] Maybe mozilla.support.{mailnews|browser|composer|misc} and
>>> mozilla.dev.{the fine granulation we have in npm now}
>>
>> IMHO, there won't be a "secure" server in the long-range scheme of
>> things. I think it's days are numbered just like the demise of Netscape.
>> As soon as The Foundation is on solid ground, I think a lot of this will
>> be changing.
>
> Why not? A secure server helps prevent e-mail address harvesting by
> spammers.
>
> What are the disadvantages of a secure server? (I think the instructions
> in my sig are pretty adequate and concise enough to rule out setting it
> up being too difficult to explain to n00bs.)
>
> Isn't setting up a secure server *negligibly* more difficult (i.e.,
> "flipping a switch") than a non-secure server?
Not if you're using one of the clients that doesn't have built-in support
for secure servers and you need to set up something like stunnel to make
it work.
I'm not sure I see the point of encrypting traffic to and from the server,
when access to the server is open to everyone. Why do I care that nobody
can intercept my communications to the server, if they can just connect to
the server themselves and download from it?
But you can have a private server (i.e. one that doesn't have groups fed
to and from the rest of the world) without the secure stuff, and that
gives most of the same advantages without the difficulties of setting up
SSL. Making any changes to the netscape.public.* hierarchy would be a big
deal if you wanted them to continue to propagate to the rest of the world.
I doubt that sorting out a news server is the Foundation's top priority at
the moment, given that the current Netscape-provided server is still here
just the same as it has been...
--
Michael
Karsten Düsterloh
>> good idea to start its own hierarchy mozilla.* and do things
>> right[1]. The mess with user-flooded developer groups and user
>> groups "hidden" on a secnews server has been going on for (far) too
>> long to be cleanable.
>>
>> [1] Maybe mozilla.support.{mailnews|browser|composer|misc} and
>> mozilla.dev.{the fine granulation we have in npm now}
>
> Well, yeah. I'm certainly in favor of a new mozilla.* hierarchy with
> names that make more sense to newbies. I really like the proposal
> that's been floating around (for how long? Years...):
> <http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt>,
I didn't know that (or forgot it already ;-) ).
Seems much more reasonable than my "short-brained" proposal above.
> with one caveat: I think the user groups in the new hierarchy should
> be divided by platform (Windows, MacOS, Unix) rather than by
> component,
I cannot say that I do not disagree with you.
Most user questions I've come around (especially in the German hierarchy
de.comm.software.mozilla.*, but in npm.* also) are *not* OS related.
Since most of the users use Windows, this looks like "getting those dumb
Win lusers out of the way". And, BTW, I don't think that a special NG
for eg. SUN users would have much traffic...
> as already people ask mailnews questions in n.p.m.browser
> (under the mistaken assumption than the entire suite is a "browser")
> and browser questions in n.p.m.mailnews (under the mistaken
> assumption that it means "that's where news & mail about Mozilla
> goes"), and I see no reason to believe that tendency will go away.
There will always be people with comprehension deficiencies, even with
Linux as their OS. ;-)
And in my experience, there aren't so many misdirected posts anyway.
One problem in this context is that Mozilla doesn't show the taglines of
newsgroups as given in most checkgroups.
Karsten
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
This "flap" only came about after the inception of unsecure
news.mozilla.org and pointing users to the "secure" server for peer support.
What's your *take* on the success of the secure server hosting the
Navigator, Communicator and Dev-Edge groups for *years* on the *secure*
server? Dissention was micro-negligible.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>> [1] Maybe mozilla.support.{mailnews|browser|composer|misc} and
>> mozilla.dev.{the fine granulation we have in npm now}
>
> Well, yeah. I'm certainly in favor of a new mozilla.* hierarchy with
> names that make more sense to newbies. I really like the proposal that's
> been floating around (for how long? Years...):
> <http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt>, with one caveat: I think the
> user groups in the new hierarchy should be divided by platform (Windows,
> MacOS, Unix) rather than by component, as already people ask mailnews
> questions in n.p.m.browser (under the mistaken assumption than the
> entire suite is a "browser") and browser questions in n.p.m.mailnews
> (under the mistaken assumption that it means "that's where news & mail
> about Mozilla goes"), and I see no reason to believe that tendency will
> go away.
>
We'll have to wait and see what the Foundation has in store for
dismantling the present server and rebuilding the groups, etc. I don't
think that AOL has the intention of keeping and/or supporting *this*
server much longer. Just a guess based on some almost-inside info.
--
Jay Garcia - Always A Netscape Champion
The UFAQ Lives - http://www.UFAQ.org
Posting Etiquette: http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html
Mozilla End-User Groups: Port 563 and enable SSL
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.win32
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On 8/12/03 5:40 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 12.08.03 03:46, Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
>>
>>>[1] Maybe mozilla.support.{mailnews|browser|composer|misc} and
>>> mozilla.dev.{the fine granulation we have in npm now}
>>
>> IMHO, there won't be a "secure" server in the long-range scheme of
>> things. I think it's days are numbered just like the demise of Netscape.
>> As soon as The Foundation is on solid ground, I think a lot of this will
>> be changing.
>
> Why not? A secure server helps prevent e-mail address harvesting by
> spammers.
>
> What are the disadvantages of a secure server? (I think the instructions
> in my sig are pretty adequate and concise enough to rule out setting it
> up being too difficult to explain to n00bs.)
>
> Isn't setting up a secure server *negligibly* more difficult (i.e.,
> "flipping a switch") than a non-secure server?
>
I don't see the problem either. After all, the Navigator and
Communicator groups as well as ALL of the Dev-Edge Groups were hosted on
the secure server for *years* with great success. If a *track record*
means anything, then we should continue *on-course*. Whinning about
secure ports and SSL for access are baseless/groundless.
<whince>
But my company sys-admin has 563 blocked
</whine>
Well, UNblock it then ... ;-)
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
If you note the secure server groups you'll see that the groups are
divided by OS and have been quite successfully since the beginning in 1995.
n.communicator
n.navigator
n.macintosh
n.communicator.unix
Browser and mail/news are not separated out into specific groups.
It worked then and likewise can work now simply becasue, well, er, it
worked and still is for that matter.
"If it ain't broke ............" ;-)
--
Jay Garcia - Always A Netscape Champion
The UFAQ Lives - http://www.UFAQ.org
Posting Etiquette: http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html
Mozilla End-User Groups: Port 563 and enable SSL
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.win32
Michael Lefevre
> On 13.08.03 05:52, Michael Lefevre wrote:
>> I'm not sure I see the point of encrypting traffic to and from the server,
>> when access to the server is open to everyone. Why do I care that nobody
>> can intercept my communications to the server, if they can just connect to
>> the server themselves and download from it?
>>
> This "flap" only came about after the inception of unsecure
> news.mozilla.org and pointing users to the "secure" server for peer support.
Sure. I don't think it's a significant problem to have it secure, I just
don't see much motivation for an SSL private server over a normal
unencrypted private server.
> What's your *take* on the success of the secure server hosting the
> Navigator, Communicator and Dev-Edge groups for *years* on the *secure*
> server? Dissention was micro-negligible.
Obviously it's worked well. But if I was starting from a blank page, I'd
imagine the SSL access is more trouble than its worth. The disadvantages
are not significant, but I think the advantages are even smaller. Not
something worth worrying about in itself, but if the existing server is
going to disappear with Netscape and be replaced with something new, then
it's something that may as well be considered by whoever is setting up the
server (although I'm sure they'd be well aware of that, without needing us
to have a discussion about it ;)
--
Michael
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Navigator/Communicator user's only avenue of corporate and volunteer
peer support was and still is on the secure server. It was really a
no-brainer in Nav/Comm to setup for secure access as it was basically
automagic - everything was done for you when you entered Snews or
SECnews for instance.
However, with the onset of multiple account settings and such, users
have to actually do some "manual" adjusments to the account to effect
access. And THAT is where the bone-of-contention enters the picture, the
automation process is lacking to some extent.
Generally speaking, users that use the "secure" server are quite happy
to NOT have a feed to/from usenet and minimal to zero email harvesting
by spammers.
To most secure server devotees, that's the only place they know to get
support and are quite comfortable with it.
BTW: The secnews server was setup in the beginning as a test-bed for
Netscape's Corporate Enterprise customers. And it just "stuck" from then
on till present day useage ...
Luke
>>
>>>On 12.08.03 03:46, Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
>>>>[1] Maybe mozilla.support.{mailnews|browser|composer|misc} and
>>>> mozilla.dev.{the fine granulation we have in npm now}
>>>
>>>IMHO, there won't be a "secure" server in the long-range scheme of
>>>things. I think it's days are numbered just like the demise of Netscape.
>>>As soon as The Foundation is on solid ground, I think a lot of this will
>>>be changing.
>> Peter Lairo wrote:
>>Why not? A secure server helps prevent e-mail address harvesting by
>>spammers.
> Michael Lefevre wrote:
> I'm not sure I see the point of encrypting traffic to and from the server...
Uh...I'm pretty sure Jay meant "financially secure", not "SSL secure".
i.e. Secure/stable enough to start basing a new NG hierarchy on.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Well, so much was pulled out of "context" here .... however ...
I meant "secure server" as being SSL access, not financially. Again, I'm
not so sure that the SECNEWS server will remain as such under Mozilla
Foundation control.