Re: How do I block posts from Novaweb/Rocksolid?

[Marco Moock]

Am 12.01.2024 um 09:58:39 Uhr schrieb Ottavio Caruso:

> I use Betterbird.

You can filter with injection-info header.

Is there a reason for filtering out all messages from there?

[VanguardLH]

Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I use Betterbird.

I used to have a filter on them. I forget who own them, but there is
another higher provider that I used to filter on. I think it was
because they used to dole out free trial accounts that spammers would
abuse. I didn't see any trial accounts at the parent anymore, so I
deleted my filters.

When I filtered on them, it was by looking at the injection node (first
one at the right end) in the PATH header. I could come up with the
filter again, but I'd need a sample. Got MID for an example article you
want to filter?

[VanguardLH]

Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I use Betterbird.

By the way, using X-No-Archive is rude. Plus, Usenet gets archived
elsewhere (Howard Knight, web forums using NNTP-to-HTTP gateways, etc),
so your article gets archived, anyway. Plus anyone quoting your post in
their reply ends up archiving your post. Plus Google Groups is
disappearing at the end of February, and that's the only place where
this header is honored.

For questions on Betterbird, ask in the alt.comp.software.thunderbird
newsgroup for help. Betterbird is a fork of Thunderbird, so those users
would know more on how that client works, like how to define rules.

For example, while I could come up with a regex to filter on the PATH
header to detect articles submitted at Rocksolid give an example post, I
don't think Thunderbird/Betterbird can test on the PATH header (which is
not an overview header, so the client needs to be configured to download
full articles, headers+body, and not just the overview headers until you
select the article). Testing on non-overview headers requires you add
them to Thunderbird. I'd have to research how that is done, remember
reading about it, but Thunderbird users should know.

[Retro Guy]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:32:25 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

> No, thanks. It was just a preemptive strike. I don't like the idea of
> having a successor to GG spamming all over the usenet.

If my sites are "spamming all over the usenet", please let me know. As of
right now, I don't see that. There are features in place to attempt to
combat such things.

You can block individual users of Rocksolid sites using the
'X-Rslight-Posting-User' header, or the entire site using Injection-Info.

I'm not sure why you'd want to block a server that is not spamming, just in
case it might happen in the future. If it starts "spamming all over the
usenet", then block it.

[Retro Guy]

I am the developer of Rocksolid Light and I run the novabbs sites. I am
also the admin of the upstream server news.i2pn2.org that the sites use to
peer Usenet.

Any posts via my Rocksolid Light sites pass through the same Spamassassin
filters that I use to generate NoCeM (i2pn2.org) messages. Users are also
limited in 'posts per hour' (currently 12).

If you see spam, please let me know so I can take action. It is not my
intention to clone Google Groups, it's just a web interface to Usenet that
tries to maintain Usenet standards.

Also, if Rocksolid Light tried to generate the amount of spam Google does,
it would most likely crash and burn pretty quickly.

For filtering:
X-Rslight-Posting-User is the USER of the Rocksolid Light site, and can be
filtered.
X-Rslight-Site is the Rocksolid Light site, but filtering that won't work,
as it changes. It is meant for internal use.
Injection-Info posting-account is the Rocksolid Light account used for
posting. Ths can be used to block the entire Rocksolid Light site.

To block i2pn2.org entirely, use Path.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Am 12/01/2024 um 14:29 schrieb VanguardLH:

>No, thanks. It was just a preemptive strike. I don't like the idea of
>having a successor to GG spamming all over the usenet.

That's quite an outrageous accusation. I suggest that you withdraw it.

[VanguardLH]

Retro Guy <retr...@novabbs.org> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I use Betterbird.
>>
>> I used to have a filter on them. I forget who own them, but there is
>> another higher provider that I used to filter on. I think it was
>> because they used to dole out free trial accounts that spammers
>> would abuse. I didn't see any trial accounts at the parent anymore,
>> so I deleted my filters.
>>
>> When I filtered on them, it was by looking at the injection node
>> (first one at the right end) in the PATH header. I could come up
>> with the filter again, but I'd need a sample. Got MID for an
>> example article you want to filter?
>
> I am the developer of Rocksolid Light and I run the novabbs sites. I
> am also the admin of the upstream server news.i2pn2.org that the
> sites use to peer Usenet.

Ah, i2pn2 was the parent I remember of rocksolid. As I recall, I
filtered on i2pn2 as the injection node in PATH, but regex let me also
prepend rocksolid to the injection node (as I recall, rocksolid was a
host atop i2pn2 in PATH).

> Any posts via my Rocksolid Light sites pass through the same
> Spamassassin filters that I use to generate NoCeM (i2pn2.org)
> messages. Users are also limited in 'posts per hour' (currently 12).

My filters are sometimes many years old, so it was a while back when I
created them. I just revisited some of my filters, and yours got
removed. The OP would have to explain why he wants to filter you out.

> If you see spam, please let me know so I can take action. It is not my
> intention to clone Google Groups, it's just a web interface to Usenet
> that tries to maintain Usenet standards.

Presumably after Feb 24, you won't be doing anything with Google Groups
since they're withrawing from Usenet. That'll ease up on filtering both
at the server and in the clients. I'll probably leave my GG filters
enabled for another year.

> For filtering:
> X-Rslight-Posting-User is the USER of the Rocksolid Light site, and
> can be filtered.
> X-Rslight-Site is the Rocksolid Light site, but filtering that won't
> work, as it changes. It is meant for internal use.
> Injection-Info posting-account is the Rocksolid Light account used for
> posting. Ths can be used to block the entire Rocksolid Light site.
>
> To block i2pn2.org entirely, use Path.

That's what I used to do. I'd filter on the injection node in PATH.
Filtering on other headers would be superfluous.

As for the OP using Betterbird, I don't know if that client can see the
PATH header when filters run on polling for new messages. PATH is not
an overview header on which the filters will exercise. Even if the OP
configures his client to download full articles (all headers and body),
he may not be able to define a rule in his client to test on that
header. It's been 3 years since I last trialed Thunderbird for 6
months, and gave up on it. I don't recall you could test on
non-overview headers, and it didn't have regex. I remember seeing
something about defining headers in Thunderbird, and then you could use
it in filters, but those wouldn't be overview headers, so the client
would have to retrieve full messages to have the headers on which to
test. That's okay if not visiting binary newsgroups (which I don't);
else, the client would spend a long time downloading those huge
multi-part messages in the binary newsgroups. I only visit text groups.

From your post using i2pn2 in PATH, my guess for a PATH filter using
regex would be something like:

(?-s)^Path: \S+i2pn2\.org(!?\.?POSTED)?(!not-for-mail)?$

I don't remember how rocksolid was prepended to the i2pn2 node. Maybe:

(?-s)^Path: \S+(rocksolid.)?i2pn2\.org(!?\.?POSTED)?(!not-for-mail)?$

I never had a filter on novabbs which is a web forum, and requires
registration. I don't remember why I filtered out i2pn2/rocksolid so
many years ago. My guess is either spam, or you were a free
unregistered Usenet provider (no account required for posting), and I
filter out those. While you are free, you require users to register to
post, so you are a registered free Usenet provider. Free is nice.
Unregistered (no accounts) prods use by unwanteds. I filter out AIOE,
neodome, and netfront, too, and now paganini. Those posts get colored
as a warning, but not deleted, and not yet hidden (that becomes the next
step if I get further disgusted with those sources). Google Groups got
filtered out ages ago. I still remember reading Blinky's Usenet
Improvement page (now at http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).

Would be nice to know why the OP wants to filter out i2pn2 as it clues
others what he thinks is wrong there, or maybe he needs to contact you.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <rlkp98zl...@v.nguard.lh> at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:37:03,
VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes

>Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I use Betterbird.
>
>By the way, using X-No-Archive is rude. Plus, Usenet gets archived

Care to say why? (I don't think I've ever used it, I just wondered why
you thought so.)

It may be _ineffective_ for the following reasons.

>elsewhere (Howard Knight, web forums using NNTP-to-HTTP gateways, etc),
>so your article gets archived, anyway. Plus anyone quoting your post in
>their reply ends up archiving your post. Plus Google Groups is
>disappearing at the end of February, and that's the only place where
>this header is honored.

[]
Do you have such views on the Expire header?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

WANTED, Dead AND Alive: Schrodinger's Cat

[Adam H. Kerman]

J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:37:03, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes
>>Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>I use Betterbird.

>>By the way, using X-No-Archive is rude. Plus, Usenet gets archived

>Care to say why? (I don't think I've ever used it, I just wondered why
>you thought so.)

>It may be _ineffective_ for the following reasons.

>>elsewhere (Howard Knight, web forums using NNTP-to-HTTP gateways, etc),
>>so your article gets archived, anyway. Plus anyone quoting your post in
>>their reply ends up archiving your post. Plus Google Groups is
>>disappearing at the end of February, and that's the only place where
>>this header is honored.
>[]
>Do you have such views on the Expire header?

Isn't Expires widely ignored as well?

[VanguardLH]

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <rlkp98zl...@v.nguard.lh> at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:37:03,
> VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes
>>Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I use Betterbird.
>>
>>By the way, using X-No-Archive is rude. Plus, Usenet gets archived
>
> Care to say why? (I don't think I've ever used it, I just wondered why
> you thought so.)

Unless I have cause to unhide ignore-tagged articles in a thread (like
someone mentioning them so I go look for them), I won't normally see
them. Those that use the "X-No-Archive: Yes" header believe their
articles are of no lasting value, so they use this header in a vain hope
to expire and delete their article. They don't want their articles
archived after some time; however, they don't get to specify the
expiration. Google expires such articles after 6 days. Other
recipients of these articles may use other expiration or completely
ignore the header. Also, using this header will NOT eliminate the
archiving of their articles. While Google drops the article after their
expiration (6 days), there are lots of other Usenet archives that do not
honor this header. Any web-based forums using NNTP-to-HTTP gateways to
leech from Usenet will not honor this header, so the article still gets
archived.

In my client, I do honor the poster's request for expiration. Instead
of deleting such articles, they are tagged as Ignored and I use a view
that hides Ignore-tagged articles. My expiration for such articles is
zero seconds. That is, I use a filter to automatically flag as ignored
any message using the "X-No-Archive: yes" or X-Yes-Archive: no" header.
My default view is to hide ignored messages, so I won't see them unless
I switch to the All Message view. Hey, it wasn't my choice the poster
thought their article wasn't important enough to see after some
expiration that they cannot specify, and they like to punch holes in
threads when their articles disappear.

The use of this header is a sign of bad faith. These posters don't want
a Usenet history (but don't seem to realize that Google Groups is hardly
the only one archiving the Usenet). They don't want a history, because
they don't want you to know who they are by the nature of their past
posts. They are attempting to shield themself from establishing a
Usenet personality. They may be both bad and good posters, but when
good they don't want to be looked up as being previously bad. Such
users are disingenuous posters. They want to say something in a public
venue, but don't want anyone to remember what they said. Meanwhile, but
only at very few NNTP servers that honor this header, this header
punches holes in a [sub]thread within a discussion. Poof, their post
disappears and this disrupts the flow of the conversation with possible
loss of content pertinent to subsequent replies that don't quote the
entire parent article (since trimming is recommended in replies).

If they don't want their posts to last in a public communication venue
to which they are published then they don't consider their posts to have
any lasting value. Since they themself don't consider their posts
important than I do the same which means I won't see them. They WANT
their posts to expire. I oblige by expiring them IMMEDIATELY.

In the past, I would sometimes quote the entire parent post to which I
was replying that employed the "X-No-Archive: Yes" header (or its
converse of the "X-Yes-Archive: No" header). My reply included all
their headers. While they tried to hide their personality by hoping to
expire their old articles, I'd show both their headers and body in my
reply to thwart their use of this vastly abused header. I gave up on
being reactive to such rude posters, and decided to just ignore them --
which is exactly what they wanted, because THEY made the expiration
request by using this header.

They don't want their posts to last, so they don't last in my
newsreader. They got just what they asked for.

> Do you have such views on the Expire header?

Does any Usenet provider honor that header?

2.2.4. Expires
For example, a message announcing an upcoming seminar could have an
expiration date the day after the seminar, since the message is not
useful after the seminar is over.

The article *is* still useful. Someone who wants to find when the
seminar took place would find the article useful for historical purpose.
I don't remember visiting *.announce newsgroups, and I'm not subscribed
to any.

But, yeah, if I found such an article, I'd flag it hidden. Why would I
want to see a post that expires today, tomorrow, or a month from now?
The parent post disappears, and any replies are orphans; however, I also
hide replies to ignore-flagged posts since I don't care to see replies
to a post that got hidden.

[VanguardLH]

Oh, by the way, the Expires header can specify a very short retention,
or a very long retention. Overly short retention is rude for the same
reasons I gave for X-(No|Yes)-Archive. Overly long is likely to be far
longer than the retention I configured for my NNTP client (1 year).
Even if it is longer than the Usenet provider's retention term, the
provider is still going to purge old articles longer than their
retention term.

I don't know of a client that cares about the X-(No|Yes)-Archive header
unless the user defines a rule on that header. I don't know of a client
that cares about the Expires header. Other than Google Groups (which
dies in a month), do you know of *any* Usenet provider that honors
either of those headers?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You are being ludicrous.

The spam attack through Google Groups was massive, millions of articles.
You just accused them of being the spamming successor to Google Groups.

You made an outrageous accusation. I suggest that you withdraw it.

[VanguardLH]

From look at posts by Ottavio Caruso, he participates in off-topic
threads in the uk.d-i-y newsgroup (which has become a trash newsgroup),
so similar elsewhere.

Since Ottavio's posts do not appear in Google Groups (other than quoted
by other posters), and from his post here, he uses the X-No-Archive
header which means he doesn't consider his posts as having any lasting
value. He considers unimportant his posts.

[Andy Burns]

VanguardLH wrote:

> From look at posts by Ottavio Caruso, he participates in off-topic
> threads in the uk.d-i-y newsgroup

I block all threads originated there by him.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <unrpj1$3h7hu$2...@dont-email.me> at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:32:33,
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> writes

I believe it is indeed widely ignored. I was just wondering whether VLH
has the same attitude to it; he's clarified that he more or less does.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I don't see the requirement to upset people. ... There's enough to make fun of
without offending. - Ronnie Corbett, in Radio Times 6-12 August 2011.

[J. P. Gilliver]

To ease Ray's workload, copied and follow-up set to E-S.talk.

In message <fvvynxff...@v.nguard.lh> at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 10:58:29,
VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes

>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <rlkp98zl...@v.nguard.lh> at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:37:03,
>> VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes
>>>Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I use Betterbird.
>>>
>>>By the way, using X-No-Archive is rude. Plus, Usenet gets archived
>>
>> Care to say why? (I don't think I've ever used it, I just wondered why
>> you thought so.)
>
>Unless I have cause to unhide ignore-tagged articles in a thread (like
>someone mentioning them so I go look for them), I won't normally see

Your choice.

>them. Those that use the "X-No-Archive: Yes" header believe their
>articles are of no lasting value, so they use this header in a vain hope
>to expire and delete their article. They don't want their articles
>archived after some time; however, they don't get to specify the
>expiration. Google expires such articles after 6 days. Other
>recipients of these articles may use other expiration or completely
>ignore the header. Also, using this header will NOT eliminate the
>archiving of their articles. While Google drops the article after their
>expiration (6 days), there are lots of other Usenet archives that do not
>honor this header. Any web-based forums using NNTP-to-HTTP gateways to
>leech from Usenet will not honor this header, so the article still gets
>archived.

To me, it's fine; I see nothing wrong with suggesting your article is of
no lasting value. That doesn't mean you think it's of no value at all.
[]

>The use of this header is a sign of bad faith. These posters don't want

I disagree.

>a Usenet history (but don't seem to realize that Google Groups is hardly
>the only one archiving the Usenet). They don't want a history, because
>they don't want you to know who they are by the nature of their past
>posts. They are attempting to shield themself from establishing a
>Usenet personality. They may be both bad and good posters, but when
>good they don't want to be looked up as being previously bad. Such
>users are disingenuous posters. They want to say something in a public
>venue, but don't want anyone to remember what they said. Meanwhile, but

Or, they don't want to clog up archives with discussion of ephemeral
(but still interesting) matters. Do you keep every issue of every
magazine you have ever bought? If not, why not, given your thoughts
above? (I know most of us nowadays rarely buy them, but that's not the
point.)
[]

>In the past, I would sometimes quote the entire parent post to which I
>was replying that employed the "X-No-Archive: Yes" header (or its
>converse of the "X-Yes-Archive: No" header). My reply included all
>their headers. While they tried to hide their personality by hoping to
>expire their old articles, I'd show both their headers and body in my
>reply to thwart their use of this vastly abused header. I gave up on

Your view that those who use that header, do so to hide their
personality, is not shared by all. (Regardless of how widely or narrowly
it is honoured.) I'm sure its original intent was to reduce the clogging
of archives - not just storage space, which many these days argue isn't
a major problem (I don't entirely agree), but also to make trawling
archives easier. Yes, I'm sure _some_ who use that header do so for the
reason(s) you suggest; we'll just have to disagree on the relative
proportions.

>being reactive to such rude posters, and decided to just ignore them --
>which is exactly what they wanted, because THEY made the expiration
>request by using this header.

To me, the above makes you come across as at least as rude as those
header-users; I realise that may not have been your intention.

>
>They don't want their posts to last, so they don't last in my
>newsreader. They got just what they asked for.

That's your prerogative.

>
>> Do you have such views on the Expire header?
>
>Does any Usenet provider honor that header?
>
>2.2.4. Expires
>For example, a message announcing an upcoming seminar could have an
>expiration date the day after the seminar, since the message is not
>useful after the seminar is over.
>
>The article *is* still useful. Someone who wants to find when the
>seminar took place would find the article useful for historical purpose.

I'm sure schedules will be in most cases kept somewhere. Even if not, I
don't see that as a reason for keeping _everything_. YMMV.

>I don't remember visiting *.announce newsgroups, and I'm not subscribed
>to any.

(I'm certainly not now. Can't remember if I was in the past. If I was
and have stopped, it's probably because they atrophied.)

>
>But, yeah, if I found such an article, I'd flag it hidden. Why would I
>want to see a post that expires today, tomorrow, or a month from now?

Because it might tell you about something important that's _happening_
today, tomorrow, or a month from now. Might even be something important
_to you_. (A reminder to get your tax returns in for example? I can see
very little reason for those to persist beyond the deadline.)

>The parent post disappears, and any replies are orphans; however, I also
>hide replies to ignore-flagged posts since I don't care to see replies
>to a post that got hidden.

That seems reasonable if you do the first.

It's mostly academic since I think the header _is_ mostly ignored (other
than by you who ignores what it specifies).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[VanguardLH]

Gilliver attempted to cross-post replies to eternal-september.talk, and
without notice. I reset Newsgroups back to eternal-september.support in
my reply.

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> Or, they don't want to clog up archives with discussion of ephemeral
> (but still interesting) matters. Do you keep every issue of every
> magazine you have ever bought? If not, why not, given your thoughts
> above? (I know most of us nowadays rarely buy them, but that's not the
> point.)

This header was not defined to reduce storage consumption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive

It was for users concerned about privacy with their messages surviving
forever. These users are posting in a public communication venue, so
just why do they expect privacy? When in public, what you say is heard
by everyone in the crowd around you. If you don't want you say to be
remembered, go into a closet, close the door, and talk softly.

X-headers are non-standard hence not defined by RFC. It could've been
called X-HideMeIn6Days. X-No-Archive was used solely at DejaNews which
Google honored after acquiring DejaNews. Its use had nothing to do with
server storage capacity. It was for those that wanted their posts to
disappear after an expiration the result of which is to punch holes in a
discussion unless respondents quote the expiring article. Anyone
quoting the expiring article subverts the intention of this header.
Followups (replies) do not automatically get this header added.

Usenet gets archived at more than Google News, so use of this header is
further nullified.

I'm not alone in this opinion regarding the use of X-No-Archive.

https://www.sweharris.org/post/2011-07-05-x-no-archive/

Although the author notes X-No-Archive could be implemented other than
at Google Groups, I've not found any others that honor this header, or
the Expires headers. Other than Google honoring DejaNews' use of this
header, Usenet providers will decide retention, not posters.

What will be your rationale to support this header after Google
disconnects from Usenet on Feb 24, 2024? Then this header becomes not
just non-standard, but also nonsense. However, it reflects the poster's
desire to hide their public statements.

Nothing to do with server storage reduction.

> To me, the above makes you come across as at least as rude as those
> header-users; I realise that may not have been your intention.

Hey, THEY want to be ignored. THEY want their posts expired. However,
THEY don't get to define the term for expiration. Whomever honors their
request by using this header gets to decide the expiration, not the
poster using this header.

The Expires header is a bit different in that the poster does get to
specify when their post expires assuming anyone honors their request via
this header. Google doesn't honor it. I don't know of a Usenet
provider that honors it. It primarily had purpose in e-mails, like
propagating a message from the mail server for a message that is no
longer applicable, like an invite to a seminar that is no longer
available. However, that requires the client not retrieve that message
until after the expiration, and that doesn't happen. If, say, a seminar
is in a month, do you actually not poll for new messages in your client
until over-month intervals? The client already has the message, and
clients don't honor the Expires header.

> That's your prerogative [to remove expiring articles].

No, it's theirs. I did not add the header into their article. THEY
want their article to disappear. I honor their request. You don't.

> I'm sure schedules will be in most cases kept somewhere. Even if not,
> I don't see that as a reason for keeping _everything_. YMMV.

You can chose whatever purge schedule you want in your client. Servers
can use whatever retention term they want.

Those schedules posted in Usenet are available other than just at
Google, and why these headers are used by ignorants.

> It's mostly academic since I think the header _is_ mostly ignored (other
> than by you who ignores what it specifies).

Why add a useless header? Somewhere these users were convinced their
articles should be removed from Usenet to somehow protect their privacy
despite they are messaging in a public venue, and the requested
expiration is only used at Google Groups.

You think these same users are going to reconfigure their newsreaders
after Google leaves Usenet, so their posts will never show up there to
then get expired (removed) after 6 days? Nope. They'll leave their
newsreaders configued to add the header although Google Groups will no
longer peer their articles. The Google Groups (DejaNews) specific
header will be meaningless, but users will continue to add those
headers.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <1dk64d03...@v.nguard.lh> at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:42:46,
VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes

>Gilliver attempted to cross-post replies to eternal-september.talk, and
>without notice. I reset Newsgroups back to eternal-september.support in
>my reply.
>
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> Or, they don't want to clog up archives with discussion of ephemeral
>> (but still interesting) matters. Do you keep every issue of every
>> magazine you have ever bought? If not, why not, given your thoughts
>> above? (I know most of us nowadays rarely buy them, but that's not the
>> point.)
>
>This header was not defined to reduce storage consumption.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive

Interesting. (Though Wikipedia articles only express the view[s] of
their author[s]. Though I cite them too!)

>
>It was for users concerned about privacy with their messages surviving
>forever. These users are posting in a public communication venue, so
>just why do they expect privacy? When in public, what you say is heard
>by everyone in the crowd around you. If you don't want you say to be
>remembered, go into a closet, close the door, and talk softly.

Conversely, we don't live every day as in East Germany.
[]

>server storage capacity. It was for those that wanted their posts to
>disappear after an expiration

which seems perfectly reasonable to me

> the result of which is to punch holes in a
>discussion unless respondents quote the expiring article. Anyone

Ephemeral discussions (such as last night's sporting event, or soap
episode) form a large part of _spoken_ discussion - which generally
_doesn't_ cite what the previous person said; I don't think the
_concept_ of an ephemeral discussion is basically wrong. If someone
wants to carry a permanent tape recorder, fine (though they may find
their friends start to look at them askance).
[]

>Usenet gets archived at more than Google News, so use of this header is
>further nullified.

Agreed, it - and Expire - are mostly ignored. We ...

>
>I'm not alone in this opinion regarding the use of X-No-Archive.
>
>https://www.sweharris.org/post/2011-07-05-x-no-archive/

... and those who agree with you - will just have to agree to disagree.

>
>Although the author notes X-No-Archive could be implemented other than
>at Google Groups, I've not found any others that honor this header, or
>the Expires headers. Other than Google honoring DejaNews' use of this
>header, Usenet providers will decide retention, not posters.
>
>What will be your rationale to support this header after Google
>disconnects from Usenet on Feb 24, 2024? Then this header becomes not
>just non-standard, but also nonsense. However, it reflects the poster's
>desire to hide their public statements.

It shows their _intention_ - which you consider evil, I consider benign.
I agree, once _nobody_ is honouring it, it will have no _effect_.
[]

>> To me, the above makes you come across as at least as rude as those
>> header-users; I realise that may not have been your intention.
>
>Hey, THEY want to be ignored. THEY want their posts expired. However,

The second does not imply the first.

>THEY don't get to define the term for expiration. Whomever honors their
>request by using this header gets to decide the expiration, not the
>poster using this header.

I certainly don't argue with that.

>
>The Expires header is a bit different in that the poster does get to
>specify when their post expires assuming anyone honors their request via
>this header. Google doesn't honor it. I don't know of a Usenet
>provider that honors it. It primarily had purpose in e-mails, like

Not sure I'd agree there: announcements of events surely are better as
news?

>propagating a message from the mail server for a message that is no
>longer applicable, like an invite to a seminar that is no longer
>available. However, that requires the client not retrieve that message
>until after the expiration, and that doesn't happen. If, say, a seminar
>is in a month, do you actually not poll for new messages in your client
>until over-month intervals? The client already has the message, and
>clients don't honor the Expires header.

You're probably right, but there's nothing stopping them doing so. (I'd
be quite happy to have one that did.)

>
>> That's your prerogative [to remove expiring articles].
>
>No, it's theirs. I did not add the header into their article. THEY
>want their article to disappear. I honor their request. You don't.

Once again, we must just agree to disagree.

>
>> I'm sure schedules will be in most cases kept somewhere. Even if not,
>> I don't see that as a reason for keeping _everything_. YMMV.
>
>You can chose whatever purge schedule you want in your client. Servers
>can use whatever retention term they want.

Nothing to disagree there.
[]

>> It's mostly academic since I think the header _is_ mostly ignored (other
>> than by you who ignores what it specifies).
>
>Why add a useless header? Somewhere these users were convinced their
>articles should be removed from Usenet to somehow protect their privacy
>despite they are messaging in a public venue, and the requested
>expiration is only used at Google Groups.

I give up. (I think I'll mark this thread uninteresting, so I won't see
any further posts in it; you can therefore "win" to your heart's
content. I won't killfile you, though I'm sure you'd say that wouldn't
bother you, because I sometimes find what you have to say useful, or
interesting, or both. Yes, I've done it. [I should have set followup-to
to E-S.talk anyway, to save Ray from having to work through it. Sorry,
Ray.])
[]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Where's Piglet?" asked Pooh, as he munched a pork pie.

[Sn!pe]

VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:

[...]

> Usenet gets archived at more than Google News, so use of this header is
> further nullified.
>
> I'm not alone in this opinion regarding the use of X-No-Archive.
>
> https://www.sweharris.org/post/2011-07-05-x-no-archive/
>
> Although the author notes X-No-Archive could be implemented other than
> at Google Groups, I've not found any others that honor this header, or
> the Expires headers. Other than Google honoring DejaNews' use of this
> header, Usenet providers will decide retention, not posters.
>

[...]

Of late, even Google has not truly honoured X-No-Archive. AIUI they
display XNA: Y posts for a week and then only ~hide~ them. The fact
of those posts still shows up in the author's posting history summary.

My own objection to Google archiving XNA: Y posts is that the posting
history is very useful to stalkers. Whatever, it's soon to be moot and
good riddance.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.

[VanguardLH]

Hey, YOU asked for elucidation on my statement. You didn't expect me to
qualify or defend my choices?

> I should have set followup-to to E-S.talk anyway, to save Ray from
> having to work through it. Sorry, Ray.

You started the subthread here. You should've changed the Subject to
"O.T. Why is X-No-Archive bad?" In addition, Ray may have more insight
regarding the headers since he is far more intimate in operating a
Usenet service. Something he said might've shut us up more quickly.

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:43:10 +0000, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

[X-No-Archive: Yes]

>> They don't want a history, because they don't want you to know who they
>> are by the nature of their past posts.

[...]

> Or, they don't want to clog up archives with discussion of ephemeral
> (but still interesting) matters. Do you keep every issue of every
> magazine you have ever bought?

That's one of the worst analogies I ever read. (And that's saying sth.!)

The fitting analogy to XNA with magazines would be the publisher telling
every public library (including those with legal _obligation_ to keep
statutory copies of every work of print, that was publicly released in
its area of responsibility - like the German National Library is for
Germany) to burn their copies after a couple of weeks (or another short
time span). - Ridiculous!

What you do /at home/ with your printed copies of magazines is solely
up to you and has nothing to do with the XNA status. No publisher will
visit you at home to check, whether you expired your magazine copies
(or your Usenet articles).

The sole exemption to this are cases of (legally ordered) confiscation.
/Then/ copies of magazines might be forced to be destroyed (for normal
libraries) or made exempt from public access (for libraries with the
obligation to keep copies). The same could apply to Usenet archives with
_very_ illicit articles. But the source of /such/ actions wouldn't be
an XNA header. And even then, the likelihood of your personal magazine
copies or locally stored Usenet articles to be affected by such legal
actions are near zero. - So even under such extreme circumstances, the
expiration span of your copies of magazines and your archive of Usenet
articles is solely up to you. The original publisher has no say in this.

BeAr
--
===========================================================================
= What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? =
===============================================================--(Oops!)===