Google Groups Archives for this newsgroup

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Mar 26, 2023, 11:53:25 PM3/26/23

to

This was just posted on the Windows newsgroups, but it applies equally to
those on these specialty newsgroups who search before they ask questions.

Paul wrote:

> Google Groups stopped adding groups, some time ago.
>
> It has added a ton of its own private groups.
> Which nobody cares about.

Hi Paul,

I often run a search before asking questions, and when researching
issues to help answer others, so I've been involved in this for years.

I think your assumption is not quite accurate, as I have been using Google
Groups archival links for many years, but I didn't do any explicit research
so it's just my "experienced assumption" that Google _does_ add groups.

They're just extremely selective about which groups they bother to add. :)

In fact, on this very newsgroup we _created_ the tinyurl links of the past:
<alt.comp.microsoft.windows>
<microsoft.public.windowsxp.general>
<alt.comp.os.windows-11>
<alt.comp.os.windows-10>
<alt.comp.os.windows-8>
<alt.windows7.general>
<alt.msdos.batch>
<alt.os.linux>
<comp.mobile.android>
<comp.mobile.ipad>
<misc.phone.mobile.iphone>
<alt.comp.freeware>
etc.

Which was well before Google changed their archival links to something easy
to remember, but when the "N" archives used exactly those monikers, namely:
<https://alt.comp.microsoft.windows.narchive.com>
<https://microsoft.public.windowsxp.general.narchive.com>
<https://alt.comp.os.windows-11.narchive.com>
<https://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narchive.com>
<https://alt.comp.os.windows-8.narchive.com>
<https://alt.windows7.general.narchive.com>
<https://alt.msdos.batch.narchive.com>
<https://alt.os.linux.narchive.com>
<https://comp.mobile.android.narchive.com>
<https://comp.mobile.ipad.narchive.com>
<https://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narchive.com>
<https://alt.comp.freeware.narchive.com>
etc.

What I had created were tinyurl links which were the best I could do then:
<https://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-microsoft-windows>
<https://tinyurl.com/microsoft-public-windowsxp-gen> (30-character limit)
I also had created an easier URL:<https://tinyurl.com/windowsxp-general>
<alt.comp.os.windows-11> At the time this didn't exist for me to set up
<https://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-10>
<https://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-8>
<https://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-7>
<https://tinyurl.com/alt-windows7-general>
<https://tinyurl.com/alt-msdos-batch>
<https://tinyurl.com/alt-os-linux>
<https://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android>
<https://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad>
<https://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
<https://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-freeware>
etc.

Note these are all so old they link to the now-deprecated Google Groups:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.comp.microsoft.windows>

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general>
<alt.comp.os.windows-11> At the time this didn't exist for me to set up
<http://www.pcbanter.net/forumdisplay.php?f=52> for Windows 10
<http://www.pcbanter.net/forumdisplay.php?f=50> for Windows-8
<http://www.pcbanter.net/forumdisplay.php?f=48> for Windows-7
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.msdos.batch>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.os.linux>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.mobile.android>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.mobile.ipad>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/misc.phone.mobile.iphone>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.comp.freeware>
etc.

Which, after the great reshuffling, currently boil down to the following
much easier to remember and logically derived Google Groups search links:
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows>
<https://groups.google.com/g/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general>
<alt.comp.os.windows-11>
<alt.comp.os.windows-10>
<alt.comp.os.windows-8>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.msdos.batch>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.linux>
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.ipad>
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware>
etc.

In summary, I "think" Google _does_ add groups when _they_ see fit.
They just do NOT see fit to add Windows variants as archived groups.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to faithfully elucidate group search archival URLs.

Grant Taylor

unread,

Mar 27, 2023, 12:03:07 AM3/27/23

to

On 3/26/23 9:53 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> I think your assumption is not quite accurate, as I have been using
> Google Groups archival links for many years, but I didn't do any
> explicit research so it's just my "experienced assumption" that Google
> _does_ add groups.

I have first hand experience with Google refusing to create new Usenet
newsgroups.

N.B. Google Groups (proper) is completely different than the Google
Groups Usenet interface.

I speculate that Google is going to discontinue their Usenet support at
some point in the future, much like they discontinue other things.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Mar 27, 2023, 1:00:10 AM3/27/23

to

Grant Taylor wrote:

> I have first hand experience with Google refusing to create new Usenet
> newsgroups.
>
> N.B. Google Groups (proper) is completely different than the Google
> Groups Usenet interface.
>
> I speculate that Google is going to discontinue their Usenet support at
> some point in the future, much like they discontinue other things.

Hi Grant,
I've dealt with you favorably many times in the past years and I agree that
what you speak of above is wisdom borne of experience with google.

I'm a persistent person, and even I have trouble getting Google to fix
things but I was able to get them to fix their Usenet URLs long ago.

(As an aside, I was also able to get them to fix Google Maps in terms
of making roads not routable when they go on private property - but it's
one of the hardest things on the planet to get someone from Mountainview
on the phone - trust me on that - as I tried - very hard I tried).

As for your clarification that the Google Groups Usenet proper is
completely different from Google Groups Usenet search engine, I would agree
(and I suspect you can _post_ using the Usenet Urls I provided if you log
in).

Of course, I never log into Google on the web so I haven't tested that,
but others may have tested it who can enlighten the rest of us on posting.

BTW, I added a few but I don't know if the nntp server will allow me to
add them below, but I'll try.

END OF RESPONSE TO GRANT

These are just some of the DejaNews Usenet groups of long ago (some new).
<alt.usage.english>
<news.software.readers>
<alt.free.newsservers>
<comp.text.pdf>
<alt.comp.software.thunderbird>
<alt.comp.software.firefox>
<rec.photo.digital>
<rec.autos.tech>
<alt.home.repair>

<alt.comp.microsoft.windows>
<microsoft.public.windowsxp.general>
<alt.comp.os.windows-11>
<alt.comp.os.windows-10>
<alt.comp.os.windows-8>
<alt.windows7.general>
<alt.msdos.batch>
<alt.os.linux>
<comp.mobile.android>
<comp.mobile.ipad>
<misc.phone.mobile.iphone>
<alt.comp.freeware>

<https://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-apps>
<https://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-system>
<https://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-advocacy>
<https://tinyurl.com/alt-internet-wireless>
<https://tinyurl.com/sci-electronics-repair>
<https://tinyurl.com/sci-geo-satellite-nav>

etc.

Note these are all so old they link to the now-deprecated Google Groups

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.sys.mac.apps>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.sys.mac.system>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.sys.mac.advocacy>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.internet.wireless>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sci.electronics.repair>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sci.geo.satellite-nav>

etc.

Which, after the great reshuffling, currently boil down to the following
much easier to remember and logically derived Google Groups search links:

<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.usage.english>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.software.readers>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.free.newsservers>
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.text.pdf>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.software.thunderbird>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.software.firefox>
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.photo.digital>
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.autos.tech>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.home.repair>

<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows>
<https://groups.google.com/g/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general>
<alt.comp.os.windows-11>
<alt.comp.os.windows-10>
<alt.comp.os.windows-8>

<alt.windows7.general>

<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.msdos.batch>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.linux>
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.ipad>
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware>

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.apps>
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.system>
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.internet.wireless>
<https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair>
<https://groups.google.com/g/sci.geo.satellite-nav>

J.O. Aho

unread,

Mar 27, 2023, 2:58:00 AM3/27/23

to

On 3/27/23 06:02, Grant Taylor wrote:

> I speculate that Google is going to discontinue their Usenet support at
> some point in the future, much like they discontinue other things.

That would be a great day, a lot less spam posted.

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Mar 27, 2023, 10:15:14 AM3/27/23

to

I'm not sure if J.O. Aho understood we're talking only about the read-only
web-searchable "g" archives (although I'm sure people can log into their
Google Account to send spam but SENDING is decidedly not the topic here).

On the Windows newsgroup, Andy Burns had kind words for Grant's actions.
*Google Groups Archives for this Usenet newsgroup*
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/c/UEmWBLlelto>

Andy Burns wrote:

>> In summary, I "think" Google _does_ add groups when _they_ see fit.
>

> After I sent the control message for the win11 group (the original
> proponent seemingly having abandoned it) I tried to request that google
> add it, no reply. Then Grant Taylor also tried (he has some "contacts")
> and was told they no longer add new usenet groups to google groups.
>
> As far as I'm aware only one Big8 group has been created since the B8MB
> arrived back from their vacation to Mars, and that
> (comp.infosystems.gemini) hasn't been added to google groups either, so
> I do tend to believe that google aren't adding new groups ...

Hi Andy,
Thanks for that update, which I much appreciate, as I took have tried
to get Google to archive certain newsgroups, so no practical avail.

That's why I resorted to the tinyurl links, until Google finally relented
on the obscure link terminology in favor of the simpler "g" group syntax.

I have three comments to add to the useful information you supplied...

1. The only archived Windows ngs, are the WinXP & Windows general groups.
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows>
<https://groups.google.com/g/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general>
Which is why it's a good idea, for canonical topics like for tutorials,
to cross post to a.c.m.w even though nobody is actually on it, per se.

2. Grant Taylor, to his credit, did respond but in a different newsgroup.
*Google Groups Archives for this newsgroup*
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware/c/SInASENSXmg>

"I have first hand experience with Google refusing to
create new Usenet newsgroups. N.B. Google Groups (proper)
is completely different than the Google Groups Usenet interface.

I speculate that Google is going to discontinue their Usenet
support at some point in the future, much like they
discontinue other things."

3. To Grant's point, a lot of people get Usenet confused with Google
Groups, perhaps because Google "seeded" their interface when they
picked up DejaNews' web-searchable archives long ago.

My suggestion is for users to use the "groups.google.com/g/"
interface for searches, where it has been my experience the search
engine is about as good/bad as "dogpile" was back in the day.

Not good. Not horrible. If you know what you're looking for, you'll
find it; but it's nothing like the search engine of Google itself.

Anything else people need to know about these Usenet newsgroup
web-searchable permanent archives?

Grant Taylor

unread,

Mar 27, 2023, 12:47:36 PM3/27/23

to

On 3/27/23 12:57 AM, J.O. Aho wrote:
> That would be a great day, a lot less spam posted.

It would also be a sad day for Usenet in the loss of the archive.

Grant Taylor

unread,

Mar 27, 2023, 12:51:25 PM3/27/23

to

On 3/26/23 11:00 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Hi Grant,

Hi Andy,

> I've dealt with you favorably many times in the past years and I agree that
> what you speak of above is wisdom borne of experience with google.

Thank you Andy. :-)

> I'm a persistent person, and even I have trouble getting Google to fix
> things but I was able to get them to fix their Usenet URLs long ago.

I too have gotten Google to fix a few things. It's a long, slow, and
arduous process. It's also predicated on them wanting to fix things
when pointed out to them.

> (As an aside, I was also able to get them to fix Google Maps in terms
> of making roads not routable when they go on private property - but it's
> one of the hardest things on the planet to get someone from Mountainview
> on the phone - trust me on that - as I tried - very hard I tried).

I know someone that worked there and could pass messages to internal
teams. Even with that, getting things done was long, slow, and and arduous.

> As for your clarification that the Google Groups Usenet proper is
> completely different from Google Groups Usenet search engine, I would
> agree (and I suspect you can _post_ using the Usenet Urls I provided if
> you log in).

Probably.

I know that once you find the desired newsgroup in Google Groups' Usenet
interface that you can post to it. That's where a lot of spam on Usenet
comes from.

> Of course, I never log into Google on the web so I haven't tested that,
> but others may have tested it who can enlighten the rest of us on posting.
>
> BTW, I added a few but I don't know if the nntp server will allow me to
> add them below, but I'll try.

D

unread,

Mar 27, 2023, 1:38:47 PM3/27/23

to

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 10:47:11 -0600, Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 3/27/23 12:57 AM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> That would be a great day, a lot less spam posted.
>It would also be a sad day for Usenet in the loss of the archive.

Monday 12 February 2001

Shadow

unread,

Mar 27, 2023, 3:32:40 PM3/27/23

to

That was when Glugle bought the largest Usenet archive
available at the time. And promised not to sit on it.

True to their word, they didn't. They shat on it and have been
shatting on it ever since.
[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Mar 27, 2023, 4:16:14 PM3/27/23

to

Grant Taylor wrote:

> I know someone that worked there and could pass messages to internal
> teams. Even with that, getting things done was long, slow, and and arduous.

I live in the area so I know lots of people who work there too, and even
then, as you found out yourself, the best I could get is a phone callback.

> I know that once you find the desired newsgroup in Google Groups' Usenet
> interface that you can post to it. That's where a lot of spam on Usenet
> comes from.

Grant Taylor

unread,

Mar 27, 2023, 4:40:28 PM3/27/23

to

On 3/27/23 2:16 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> I live in the area so I know lots of people who work there too,
> and even then, as you found out yourself, the best I could get is a
> phone callback.

I got a lot closer to the proper people than that. But, I'm not at
liberty to go into details.

Suffice it to say that I would not bet a gas station cup of coffee on
Google continuing to support Usenet in any capacity.

Blue-Maned_Hawk

unread,

Mar 27, 2023, 10:41:23 PM3/27/23

to

On 3/27/23 00:02, Grant Taylor wrote:
> I speculate that Google is going to discontinue their Usenet support at
> some point in the future, much like they discontinue other things.
>

That's horrifying to think about. Is there anyone else who's archiving
Usenet? I'm not aware of e.g. the Internet Archive doing anything.

--
⚗︎ | /blu.mɛin.dʰak/ | shortens to "Hawk" | he/him/his/himself/Mr.
bluemanedhawk.github.io
Bitches stole my whole ass ␔🭖᷿᪳𝼗᷍⏧𒒫𐻾ࣛ↉�⃣ quoted-printable, can't
have shit in Thunderbird 😩

Grant Taylor

unread,

Mar 28, 2023, 12:29:09 AM3/28/23

to

On 3/27/23 8:41 PM, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> That's horrifying to think about.

Why is it horrifying?

I hope that it's not surprising to anyone.

> Is there anyone else who's archiving Usenet? I'm not aware of e.g. the
> Internet Archive doing anything.

I'm not aware of anyone doing anything publicly.

I have a collection on my private / personal server. But that's not a
full feed and there are a number of filters in place so the newsgroups
that I do have are incomplete.

Apd

unread,

Mar 28, 2023, 9:54:15 AM3/28/23

to

"Grant Taylor" wrote:
> On 3/27/23 12:57 AM, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> That would be a great day, a lot less spam posted.
>
> It would also be a sad day for Usenet in the loss of the archive.

Since they acquired it from Deja News and added to it, it must be the
most complete archive there is. Disallowing posting would be fine but
to lose all that history completely would be almost criminal.

They've made it less useful over time by removing various options to
do with searching and statistics, and no longer allow access to the
raw message where useful/interesting header info can be found.

If it's of no value to them they should pass it on to an org who is
willing to curate it for the benefit of everyone. If this loss becomes
likely, perhaps you could impress upon your contacts the importance of
preserving the archive.

John C.

unread,

Mar 28, 2023, 10:51:57 AM3/28/23

to

Shadow wrote:
> (CEST), D <J@M> wrote:

>> Grant Taylor wrote:
>>> J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That would be a great day, a lot less spam posted.
>>> It would also be a sad day for Usenet in the loss of the archive.
>>
>> Monday 12 February 2001
>
> That was when Glugle bought the largest Usenet archive
> available at the time. And promised not to sit on it.
>
> True to their word, they didn't. They shat on it and have been
> shatting on it ever since.

"Do no evil" indeed. Oh, that's right. They now have a "new policy".

--
John C. BS206. No ad, CD, cripple, demo, nag, pay, pirated, share, spy,
time-limited, trial or web wares for me please. I filter out posts made
from Google Groups and also cross-posted messages (those sent to more
than one newsgroup at a time.) I recommend you do likewise. I also
filter out all posts from Kasey, a troll who doesn't believe in two-way
firewalls and »Q«, who is a more garden-variety troll.

Grant Taylor

unread,

Mar 28, 2023, 1:43:57 PM3/28/23

to

On 3/28/23 7:54 AM, Apd wrote:
> If it's of no value to them they should pass it on to an org who is
> willing to curate it for the benefit of everyone.

Who would you recommend?

> If this loss becomes likely, perhaps you could impress upon your
> contacts the importance of preserving the archive.

Oh, believe me, I tried. My contacts tried. Sadly, to no avail.

Apd

unread,

Mar 28, 2023, 5:38:44 PM3/28/23

to

"Grant Taylor" wrote:
> On 3/28/23 7:54 AM, Apd wrote:
>> If it's of no value to them they should pass it on to an org who is
>> willing to curate it for the benefit of everyone.
>
> Who would you recommend?

I was going to suggest archive.org but they haven't done a good job
with what they already have, which are just large file dumps from
various places covering various periods:
<https://archive.org/details/usenet>

This guy has at least made a navigable site but some groups I checked
have many missing threads, it's slow to search, doesn't show the raw
message and is not up to date:
<https://www.usenetarchives.com/>
It was announced here:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/comments/in6u06/free_usenet_text_archive_goes_online_300_million/>
and would be a good alternative if he completes and improves it, but
a lot to do (and expense?) for one person.

Other than that, a library, university, charitable foundation? For a
properly searchable and navigable archive of what Google has,
including access to the raw message, I'd be prepared tolerate
advertising or even pay a small subscription fee.

Jason Evans of the recently revived Big-8 Management Board wants to
"kindle new interest in Usenet". He might have ideas:
<https://www.big-8.org/wiki/User:Jason_Evans>

>> If this loss becomes likely, perhaps you could impress upon your contacts
>> the importance of preserving the archive.
>
> Oh, believe me, I tried. My contacts tried. Sadly, to no avail.

Good for you but I can't understand their attitude. They could have
posts from the early days that are historically significant and are
nowhere else. It would be crazy to lose it all.

Grant Taylor

unread,

Mar 28, 2023, 7:31:17 PM3/28/23

to

On 3/28/23 3:37 PM, Apd wrote:
> I was going to suggest archive.org but they haven't done a
> good job with what they already have, which are just large
> file dumps from various places covering various periods:
> <https://archive.org/details/usenet>

The Internet Archive / archive.org hasn't actually /archived/ /Usenet/.
Various people have uploaded archives of part of Usenet. There is a
significant difference.

> This guy has at least made a navigable site but some
> groups I checked have many missing threads, it's slow
> to search, doesn't show the raw message and is not up to
> date: <https://www.usenetarchives.com/> It was announced here:
> <https://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/comments/in6u06/free_usenet_text_archive_goes_online_300_million/>
> and would be a good alternative if he completes and improves it,
> but a lot to do (and expense?) for one person.

ACK

> Other than that, a library, university, charitable foundation? For a
> properly searchable and navigable archive of what Google has, including
> access to the raw message, I'd be prepared tolerate advertising or
> even pay a small subscription fee.

Sounds like an actual Usenet News Service Provider might be a viable
candidate. ;-)

> Jason Evans of the recently revived Big-8 Management Board
> wants to "kindle new interest in Usenet". He might have ideas:
> <https://www.big-8.org/wiki/User:Jason_Evans>

ACK

> Good for you but I can't understand their attitude. They could have
> posts from the early days that are historically significant and are
> nowhere else. It would be crazy to lose it all.

I'm not at liberty to go into details, but suffice it to say I
completely agree with you.

Blue-Maned_Hawk

unread,

Mar 28, 2023, 8:23:58 PM3/28/23

to

On 3/28/23 00:28, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 3/27/23 8:41 PM, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
>> That's horrifying to think about.
>
> Why is it horrifying?
>
> I hope that it's not surprising to anyone.
>

Decades of history being able to disappear in an instant? I consider
that to be pretty horrifying.

Grant Taylor

unread,

Mar 28, 2023, 10:49:23 PM3/28/23

to

On 3/28/23 6:21 PM, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> Decades of history being able to disappear in an instant? I consider
> that to be pretty horrifying.

I don't consider it to be an instant.

Google has been letting their Usenet interaction languish for years now.

History has shown that Google has a habit of discontinuing things that
people like and use for reasons of their own.

IMHO relying on Google is a recipe for disaster.

John Hasler

unread,

Mar 28, 2023, 11:08:09 PM3/28/23

to

You assume that Google has a complete archive and that no one else does.

Why don't you get started right now on downloading that archive?
--
John Hasler
jo...@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Gary R. Schmidt

unread,

Mar 29, 2023, 1:39:10 AM3/29/23

to

On 29/03/2023 01:51, John C. wrote:
> Shadow wrote:
>> (CEST), D <J@M> wrote:
>>> Grant Taylor wrote:
>>>> J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be a great day, a lot less spam posted.
>>>> It would also be a sad day for Usenet in the loss of the archive.
>>>
>>> Monday 12 February 2001
>>
>> That was when Glugle bought the largest Usenet archive
>> available at the time. And promised not to sit on it.
>>
>> True to their word, they didn't. They shat on it and have been
>> shatting on it ever since.
>
> "Do no evil" indeed. Oh, that's right. They now have a "new policy".
>

That's the thing, it was never "Do no evil", it was actually a
contraction of "Do no(t get caught doing) evil". :-)

Cheers,
Gary B-)

John C.

unread,

Mar 29, 2023, 5:55:41 AM3/29/23

to

Thanks for the clarification, Gary. 80)>

Apd

unread,

Mar 29, 2023, 6:45:16 AM3/29/23

to

"Grant Taylor" wrote:
> The Internet Archive / archive.org hasn't actually /archived/ /Usenet/.
> Various people have uploaded archives of part of Usenet. There is a
> significant difference.

I know, and they likely don't have the resources (or motivation) to
turn them into something useful.

> Sounds like an actual Usenet News Service Provider might be a viable
> candidate. ;-)

I thought that as I sent the post! Some NSPs have very long retention
but they'd need to never expire articles. They'd also need to provide
an interface other than NNTP, as it's not practical for individual
news clients to download millions of headers for searching.

I forgot to mention Howard Knight. He provides web access to single
articles (truncated if over a certain length) if you have the MID,
and is completely up to date. I suspect it's a front end to a normal
newsfeed so I don't know about full retention (it's fairly long). He
was going to close it but people wrote in and he kept it going.
<http://al.howardknight.net/>

> I'm not at liberty to go into details, but suffice it to say I completely
> agree with you.

I understand. Losing a service is one thing but to destroy an archive
is something else.

David Brooks

unread,

Mar 29, 2023, 9:14:06 AM3/29/23

to

On 29/03/2023 11:45, Apd wrote:
> He
> was going to close it but people wrote in and he kept it going.
> <http://al.howardknight.net/>

That's true! I had email discussion with him and persuaded him to
maintain his service!

Apd

unread,

Mar 29, 2023, 2:24:25 PM3/29/23

to

Yes, I remember, and he got off his "lazy butt" (as he put it) to get
it working again.

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Mar 30, 2023, 9:15:55 AM3/30/23

to

Grant Taylor wrote:

> I got a lot closer to the proper people than that. But, I'm not at
> liberty to go into details.
>
> Suffice it to say that I would not bet a gas station cup of coffee on
> Google continuing to support Usenet in any capacity.

Thanks for that information, Grant, which I greatly appreciate. I know a
bunch of the coders who work there, but that's it for my contacts.

BTW, I realized only belatedly that the narkive apparently removed the
search feature, which never worked well - but now it seems to be gone.

Going to <https://alt.comp.freeware.narkive.com>, if I click on "Display
Options", more stuff comes up, but not the search button and you can't
"Save" the options of making the list 10000 threads long without having
an account (which defeats the general-purpose nature of this solution).

Apparently we can "register an account" but that's not the point here.
<https://narkive.com/about>
<https://narkive.com/privacy>
<https://narkive.com/legalese>

I sent an email asking for what happened to the search button.
"Narkive was started in late 2009 by then 17-year-old me (Davide Cavion)
and has since then always been a one man operation (david @ narkive com).

Hacking, I guess we could add "site:narkive.com" to a search engine as
<https://duckduckgo.com/?va=u&t=hi&q=tutorial+site%253Anarkive.com>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=tutorial+site%253Anarkive.com>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=tutorial+alt.free.newsservers+site%253Anarkive.com>

Sigh. We're left with dejagoogle alone for a _direct_ free general purpose
registration free Usenet search engine then... unless folks have better
ideas (where I'm aware every nntp server provides their own private
archives of varying capabilities - but that's not a general purpose
solution).

I apologize for my mistake in not testing the narkive (mostly I use the
dejagoogle archives when I need to find & then link to a specific thread).

--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information

which, in this case, is to faithfully test out the narkive search finding.

David Brooks

unread,

Mar 30, 2023, 9:40:18 AM3/30/23

to

NARKIVE.com

305,138,404 threads
987,040,828 messages

Andy Burnelli

unread,

Mar 30, 2023, 4:19:18 PM3/30/23

to

Sn!pe wrote:

> "alt.free.nntp does not exist on this server"

AFAICT, alt.free.nntp is listed in dejagoogle & in the narkive:
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.free.nntp>
<https://alt.free.nntp.narkive.com/> (first post 20 years ago)

Aioe, Blueworld, Dizum, Mixmin, Neodome, Netfront, Paganini, Solani,
and XSUsenet all show that they served alt.free.nntp to their users.

I'm no expert though - I just use free newsservers that I know about.
I use them mainly for privacy (paying usually requires credit cards).

Is there anyone who knows more about why it's not in snipe's feed?