Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
(Perhaps OT): How to post images in Google/Usenet newsgroups?
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Ramon F Herrera
Jan 18, 2012, 1:13:43 PM1/18/12
to
I have no idea where to post this. Perhaps one of you folks out there
can help.
I am trying to figure out the technique used to post images in Google
Usenet Groups.
These ones, for instance:
http://tinyurl.com/6qhhg2w
http://tinyurl.com/877eony
I am not sure whether this is Google-specific or if it works Usenet-
wide (with the proper newsreader, of course).
TIA!
-Ramon
Joe Kesselman
Jan 18, 2012, 6:57:24 PM1/18/12
to
Yes, offtopic.
Generally, posting images on Usenet is frowned on except in newsgroups
specifically intended for that purpose. A picture may be worth a
thousand words, but it takes up about as many bytes as ten thousand.
In those binary newsgroups which do welcome images, the usual approach
is to encode the image file in base-64 (websearch will find tools for
this) and to post the resulting text characters. Other folks will use
similar tools (sometimes, but not always, provided by their newsgroup
readers) to convert that text back to a binary file.
To make it very vaguely on topic: This is also the best approach if you
really need to imbed an arbitrary image directly into an XML file. And
has the same limitation: the tool used to read that file has to
understand that this is what you intended and how to convert it back.
Generally that's a Bad Idea unless you're dealing with digital
signatures; more commonly, you'd just use a URI to point to a copy of
the image available for download somewhere.
Which is also, arguably, a better approach than posting images into a
newsgroup.
--
Joe Kesselman,
http://www.love-song-productions.com/people/keshlam/index.html
{} ASCII Ribbon Campaign | "may'ron DaroQbe'chugh vaj bIrIQbej" --
/\ Stamp out HTML mail! | "Put down the squeezebox & nobody gets hurt."
Generally, posting images on Usenet is frowned on except in newsgroups
specifically intended for that purpose. A picture may be worth a
thousand words, but it takes up about as many bytes as ten thousand.
In those binary newsgroups which do welcome images, the usual approach
is to encode the image file in base-64 (websearch will find tools for
this) and to post the resulting text characters. Other folks will use
similar tools (sometimes, but not always, provided by their newsgroup
readers) to convert that text back to a binary file.
To make it very vaguely on topic: This is also the best approach if you
really need to imbed an arbitrary image directly into an XML file. And
has the same limitation: the tool used to read that file has to
understand that this is what you intended and how to convert it back.
Generally that's a Bad Idea unless you're dealing with digital
signatures; more commonly, you'd just use a URI to point to a copy of
the image available for download somewhere.
Which is also, arguably, a better approach than posting images into a
newsgroup.
--
Joe Kesselman,
http://www.love-song-productions.com/people/keshlam/index.html
{} ASCII Ribbon Campaign | "may'ron DaroQbe'chugh vaj bIrIQbej" --
/\ Stamp out HTML mail! | "Put down the squeezebox & nobody gets hurt."
Peter Flynn
Jan 21, 2012, 6:51:38 PM1/21/12
to
On 18/01/12 18:13, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>
> I have no idea where to post this. Perhaps one of you folks out there
> can help.
>
> I am trying to figure out the technique used to post images in Google
> Usenet Groups.
You can't. Usenet is text-only. There are some special-purpose groups
>
> I have no idea where to post this. Perhaps one of you folks out there
> can help.
>
> I am trying to figure out the technique used to post images in Google
> Usenet Groups.
with "binaries" in their name where you can post Base64-encoded chunks
for readers to reconstruct, but there is no method for attachments as
their is with email.
Incidentally, they are Usenet newsgroups. Nothing to do with Google
except that Google provides an archive, and an interface for reading an
posting, and is trying hard to elide the distinction between its own
"groups" and Usenet...for some reason I can't fathom.
///Peter
Simon Wright
Jan 22, 2012, 6:18:43 AM1/22/12
to
Peter Flynn <pe...@silmaril.ie> writes:
> On 18/01/12 18:13, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea where to post this. Perhaps one of you folks out there
>> can help.
>>
>> I am trying to figure out the technique used to post images in Google
>> Usenet Groups.
>
> You can't. Usenet is text-only. There are some special-purpose groups
> with "binaries" in their name where you can post Base64-encoded chunks
> for readers to reconstruct, but there is no method for attachments as
> their is with email.
This isn't really true. NNTP attachments[1] are handled in almost
> On 18/01/12 18:13, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea where to post this. Perhaps one of you folks out there
>> can help.
>>
>> I am trying to figure out the technique used to post images in Google
>> Usenet Groups.
>
> You can't. Usenet is text-only. There are some special-purpose groups
> with "binaries" in their name where you can post Base64-encoded chunks
> for readers to reconstruct, but there is no method for attachments as
> their is with email.
exactly the same way as Mail[2] (I dare say there are still Microsoft
alternatives).
There's nothing to prevent you trying to post a message with attachments
to a Usenet group; however, there are news gateways (such as the one I
use, eternal-september.org) which discard articles with binary content,
both from upstream and downstream, so I can neither see nor post
articles with binary attachments (though text attachments are OK; I'll
try to attach one to this article as a demo).
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3977
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME
Joe Kesselman
Jan 24, 2012, 10:02:27 PM1/24/12
to
On 1/22/2012 6:18 AM, Simon Wright wrote:
> This isn't really true. NNTP attachments[1] are handled in almost
> exactly the same way as Mail[2]
Except for a very few groups, rich text/mime/attachments in Usenet are
> This isn't really true. NNTP attachments[1] are handled in almost
> exactly the same way as Mail[2]
generally consider an Abomination and a mark of the Clueless Newbie.
Not everything that is possible is culturally acceptable. Or a good idea.
Still 'way off topic for _this_ newsgroup.
Joe Kesselman
Jan 25, 2012, 8:16:44 AM1/25/12
to
On 1/22/2012 6:18 AM, Simon Wright wrote:
> This isn't really true. NNTP attachments[1] are handled in almost
> exactly the same way as Mail[2]
> exactly the same way as Mail[2]
Except for a very few groups, rich text/mime/attachments in Usenet are
generally considered an Abomination and a mark of the Clueless Newbie.
0 new messages