Why include microsoft.public.news.server in the first round?
98 Guy
> Which Newsgroups Are Affected by this Shutdown?
> All public newsgroups will eventually be closed between June 1, 2010
> and October 1, 2010.
>
> When will this Happen?
> Effective June 1, 2010 *this* newsgroup will be closed.
Is there any logical or coherent reason why Microsoft would NOT leave
*this* particular group (microsoft.public.news.server) in place until
the very end, instead of including it in the first wave of group
closures?
Also, I've noticed that the last "final warning" messages put out by
Microsoft in many groups are coming from a (Seattle?) Comcast IP
address:
----------
From: nn...@microsoft.com
Subject:
Final Reminder - Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Community
Message-ID: <ewEgFWq$KHA....@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.apps
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 13:36:57 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host:
c-24-22-159-236.hsd1.wa.comcast.net 24.22.159.236
----------
This is instead of the usual tide548.microsoft.com (131.107.0.118).
98 Guy
> > MS said they were eliminating less active groups first. I would
> > imagine that .news.server is a very low activity group.
>
> Did Microsoft write a News server?
Who says that all microsoft.* groups must pertain or be about their
products?
It looks obvious to me that the group microsoft.public.news.server
exists for the purpose of discussing operational aspects of MS's news
server, or for posting administrative messages. If so, then it would be
logical for Microsoft to post messages in that group pertaining to the
closure of the server and the group-removal process, leaving that
newsgroup to be among the last to be removed.
Of course, using "logical" and "Microsoft" in the same sentence is
rarely useful.