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

[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

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.