netscape class
Joe Long
Jerry Doyle <jdo...@bvsd.k12.co.us> wrote:
>test message for netscape class
I hope you're not the teacher, or you're teaching your charges bad
habits. There are test groups, such as co.test, for that purpose.
--
Joe Long
jlong at mti dot net (j...@mti.net is my antispam address)
http://www.mti.net business
http://www.rnbw.com personal
Vernon Schryver
In article <338b1cde...@news.mti.net>, Joe Long <j...@mti.net> wrote:
>Jerry Doyle <jdo...@bvsd.k12.co.us> wrote:
>
>>test message for netscape class
>
>I hope you're not the teacher, or you're teaching your charges bad
>habits. There are test groups, such as co.test, for that purpose.
That is also mistaken.
All non-local test groups are bogus and bad. If you don't have
something like local.test or bvsd.test or test.mti, then you should
just not test. The non-local test groups are too often used for
various kinds of denial-of-service attacks. (If you don't know
what I'm talking about, then I'm sorry. I'm not about to spell it
out for all of the kindergarten drop-out losers on the net.)
There is no need or excuse for sending non-local netnews test
messages. Instead, simply wait until you have something to say,
say it in an article, and see if it works. If it doesn't (and you
are completely certain it didn't work), fix the problem and say it
again. If you have nothing to say, then you have no need or excuse
for sending test messages. If you do have something to say, you
also have no need or excuse for test messages.
Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com
klaus
abe wrote:
> more net traffic "noise" than his message alone. There are times
> when one wishes to send a simple test to the newsgroup one intends
> to use. Most of these very short test messages harm no one so why
> not just let them be?
>
> Abe Collins
Ditto.
Yeah Abe!!!
Vernon Schryver
In article <337F6B...@sprintmail.com>, abe <a...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> There is no need or excuse for sending non-local netnews test
>> messages. Instead, simply wait until you have something to say,
>> say it in an article, and see if it works. If it doesn't (and you
>> are completely certain it didn't work), fix the problem and say it
>> again. If you have nothing to say, then you have no need or excuse
>> for sending test messages. If you do have something to say, you
>> also have no need or excuse for test messages.
>Sheesh, I think the responses to Jerry's "test message" created
>more net traffic "noise" than his message alone.
Obviously. It is just as obvious to people with experience with the
net that test messages are a bane that came with the Never Ending
September and exceeded only by spam and flamewars. If these ~6 messages
prevent the next dozen test messages we will have come out ahead.
> There are times
>when one wishes to send a simple test to the newsgroup one intends
>to use.
Again, if you have something to say, then say it. Use your first
real message as a test message. If you have nothing to say, then
you have no excuse for bothering thousands of people with the
equivalent of "testing testing 1 2 3 testing" at 100 dB.
Netnews test messages are just as silly as the comedy routine in which
a dork is handed a live microphone and then blows into it, counts, and
asks "is this thing on?" before saying anything. Anyone with half a
brain when handed a microphone simply launches into the speech, while
being prepared to speak more loudly or softly, or repeat the first words.
As with a public address system, test messages are reasonable exactly
when you need to test the system but have nothing to say. If you are
installing a PA system, counting at 120 dB is as good a noise as any.
Howver, you don't do such stuff after the paying customers are seated,
unless you figure you have too many paying customers. If you are setting
up a netnews system and not trying to prove your ignorance and incompetance
to thousands, you send test messages to a local group or to the to.neighbor
groups you set up as part of installing the system.
If you do not know about local or to.* groups, then you should not
be sending any test messages, because you lack the knowledge to
interpret or act on their results.
> Most of these very short test messages harm no one so why
>not just let them be?
Why is that sentiment reasonable, but not the notions expressed by
replacing the words "very short test" with "visit my web page,"
"see live sex," "send $1", or "read this twice"?
Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com
abe
The point is that it really doesn't matter. It would seem to me that
people would be less annoyed by an honest test message than what you are
suggesting above. Jerry's very short and reasonable test posting didn't
seem to annoy anyone except for a couple "expert" net elitists who
didn't like the way he tested (even though he did absolutely no harm).
Abe Collins
> Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com
Joe Long
abe <a...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Vernon Schryver wrote:
...
>> There is no need or excuse for sending non-local netnews test
>> messages. Instead, simply wait until you have something to say,
>> say it in an article, and see if it works. ...
>Sheesh, I think the responses to Jerry's "test message" created
>more net traffic "noise" than his message alone. There are times
>when one wishes to send a simple test to the newsgroup one intends
>to use. Most of these very short test messages harm no one so why
>not just let them be?
On this point I agree with Vernon. There is simply no need to do this.
An occasional short "test" message does little harm, true, but if they
become common they add to the noise -- and if a class is being
encouraged to do this, the whole class is being taught bad habits.
The *only* reason I responded to this one is that it was said to be for
a Netscape class!
Patrick Cook
On 18 May 1997, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> In article <337F6B...@sprintmail.com>, abe <a...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
> >> There is no need or excuse for sending non-local netnews test
> >> messages. Instead, simply wait until you have something to say,
> >> say it in an article, and see if it works. If it doesn't (and you
> >> are completely certain it didn't work), fix the problem and say it
> >> again. If you have nothing to say, then you have no need or excuse
> >> for sending test messages. If you do have something to say, you
> >> also have no need or excuse for test messages.
>
>
> >Sheesh, I think the responses to Jerry's "test message" created
> >more net traffic "noise" than his message alone.
>
> Obviously. It is just as obvious to people with experience with the
> net that test messages are a bane that came with the Never Ending
> September and exceeded only by spam and flamewars. If these ~6 messages
> prevent the next dozen test messages we will have come out ahead.
I agree. Let's let this thread die and MOVE ON!!!!!
> > There are times
> >when one wishes to send a simple test to the newsgroup one intends
> >to use.
>
> Again, if you have something to say, then say it. Use your first
> real message as a test message. If you have nothing to say, then
> you have no excuse for bothering thousands of people with the
> equivalent of "testing testing 1 2 3 testing" at 100 dB.
Again, I agree. Instead of just sending out a simple test message to 1000
newsgroups, why not just simply REPLY TO AN ARTICLE such as this one and
be done with it. If you see the post come across next time you check the
newsgroups, then you know that your mailer, reader, what-have-you is
working properly. If you *don't* see your post next time you check your
newsgroups, then you KNOW you have a problem AND _NO ONE_ will have to
read some stupid "test" message.
> > Most of these very short test messages harm no one so why
> >not just let them be?
>
> Why is that sentiment reasonable, but not the notions expressed by
> replacing the words "very short test" with "visit my web page,"
> "see live sex," "send $1", or "read this twice"?
Or in my case, my seeing about a half-dozen copies of a spam by Gregory J.
Paulhouse, claiming to be some sort of "Lizard King"!!!! That's what it
leads up to.
Besides, many ISPs offer .test newsgroups just for this very purpose
anyway. Why bother posting to a newsgroup as popular as boulder.general
just to demonstrate Netscape to a bunch of students when a local .test
newsgroup (created by your ISP) will serve the same purpose WITHOUT anyone
even knowing what you're doing????
It's all a matter of logic and common netiquette sense IMHO....
Patrick Cook
Denver, Colorado
da...@rmi.net
As I recall, Vernon Schryver (v...@calcite.rhyolite.com) wrote:
->Obviously. It is just as obvious to people with experience with the
->net that test messages are a bane that came with the Never Ending
->September and exceeded only by spam and flamewars. If these ~6 messages
->prevent the next dozen test messages we will have come out ahead.
What was misc.test for again, Sage? I forget...
-DanD
--
# Dan D (kd4igw) da...@rmii.com da...@frottage.com
# Your wristwatch could cheat all five at poker and then talk them all
# into voting Republican. -David Brin
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet