Migration to new news server and reorganization of netscape.public.* hierarchy

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Frank Wein

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 5:21:47 PM12/30/05
to
Hi,
as you may have already read somewhere on the web, the migration to the
new news server will finally take part in January 2006 (probably first
half of it). Connected to this is the migration to new newsgroup hierarchy.
The new news server/infrastructure will be hosted by GigaNews, but of
course access to the news server news.mozilla.org will remain free as it
is right now :). So the new news group hierarchy will not be propagated
to the rest of the Usenet like before, you can only find the new groups
on news.mozilla.org, GigaNews servers and on Google Groups then.
If you don't know the new newsgroup hierarchy yet, take a look at
http://www.mozilla.org/community/newsgroups.txt, there the new newsgroup
hierarchy can be found.
If you still have questions take a look at the FAQ under
http://www.mozilla.org/community/giganews-migration.html first.

Frank
f'up2 netscape.public.mozilla.general set

Ruediger Lahl

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 6:10:42 PM12/30/05
to
Frank Wein wrote:

> So the new news group hierarchy will not be propagated to the rest of
> the Usenet like before, you can only find the new groups on
> news.mozilla.org, GigaNews servers and on Google Groups then.

Sad, truly sad ...
--
best regards

John A.

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 7:21:32 PM12/30/05
to

Yup. Not that things are perfect now. I've always thought that having
the developer groups propagated while user groups are not is a bit
backwards. Particularly so for users who don't install or use the
mail/news component or T-bird.

Are the current groups going away? If so, I say let's start a parallel
set under alt.mozilla instead of netscape.public.mozilla. If they want
to take their ball and go home, we'll make our own ball and keep
playing.

JA

Ruediger Lahl

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 8:08:35 PM12/30/05
to
John A. wrote:

>>Sad, truly sad ...


>
> If so, I say let's start a parallel set under alt.mozilla instead of
> netscape.public.mozilla. If they want to take their ball and go home,
> we'll make our own ball and keep playing.

Splitting the traffic is worse. We should swallow the toad.
--
best regards

Sean Vickery (remove the blood-smeared Nordics to email)

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 8:09:35 PM12/30/05
to

When this is done you'll have my thanks, Frank.

I am an end user of Firefox, Thunderbird and have also used
Calendar/Sunbird. I am also a computer technician. Firefox and
Thunderbird and handy to install on computers I set up for clients.

I try to keep up with a little of the technical discussion on
n.p.m.seamonkey, which used to be the group for discussing architecture.
Unfortunately since the taking of the name seamonkey by the people
continuing the suite there's less and less discussion about the trunk
applications' architecture in this group.

After the newsgroup reorg I envisage my reading options getting much better.

cheers all
sean vickery
--
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in
all kinds of directions." -- Terry Pratchett, The Truth

Karsten Düsterloh

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 8:52:59 PM12/30/05
to
Ruediger Lahl aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:

>> If so, I say let's start a parallel set under alt.mozilla instead of
>> netscape.public.mozilla. If they want to take their ball and go home,
>> we'll make our own ball and keep playing.
>
> Splitting the traffic is worse.

Yeah. Don't do that.
(Having non-English groups in other hierarchies is quite welcome, of
course, to help non-English users, of course.)

> We should swallow the toad.

Well, first of all, news.mozilla.org will still be there and usable by
everyone - but I do hope they get the spam issue resolved.
That's why I do read npm.* over individual.net - they're running a very
effective CleanFeed installation.
But mentioning Google Groups as an anti-spam measure is bad hoax...

We'll see.


Karsten
--
Freiheit stirbt | Fsayannes SF&F-Bibliothek:
Mit Sicherheit | http://fsayanne.tprac.de/

Chris Ilias

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 9:56:58 PM12/30/05
to
_Karsten Düsterloh_ spoke thusly:

> But mentioning Google Groups as an anti-spam measure is bad hoax...
>
> We'll see.

I don't know where anyone said going to Google Groups was an anti-spam
measure. The primary reason for going to Google is to have a searchable
archive.
--
Chris Ilias - Mozilla Champion
Netscape/Mozilla Links <http://ilias.ca>
Mozilla Help <http://mozillahelp.com>

Karsten Düsterloh

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 6:19:18 AM12/31/05
to
Chris Ilias aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:

> _Karsten Düsterloh_ spoke thusly:
>> But mentioning Google Groups as an anti-spam measure is bad hoax...
>>
>>
>> We'll see.
>
> I don't know where anyone said going to Google Groups was an
> anti-spam measure.

The FAQ says:

> Will the newsgroups be propagated to Usenet at large? Will the
> newsgroups be accessible through Google Groups?
>
> These two questions are connected; propagation has both upsides and
> downsides. The downsides are that propagation means that we can't
> really do post deletions, and a failure to control spam may affect
> developer participation. It's been decided, at least initially, to
> limit propagation to only GigaNews and Google Groups. We have
> agreements in place with both services to not propagate messages any
> further. Based on feedback from the community, this may change at
> some point in the future, but deciding to allow propagation is an
> irreversible decision so we're starting out the "safe" way. :)

Ron Lopshire

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 8:49:45 AM12/31/05
to
Karsten Düsterloh wrote:

Since the decision by Mozilla to abandon the Suite, I am not sure that
I like where Mozilla is going anyway. And since SeaMonkey doesn't fall
under the Mozilla umbrella, I would favor a total break with
AOL/Netscape/Mozilla including NG and Fora(Forums). I realize that
this may be just wishful thinking, since the finances are probably not
in place to allow such a break at this time. At any rate, that is just
my opinion.

Ron :)

Karsten Düsterloh

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 10:27:05 AM12/31/05
to
Ron Lopshire aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:

> Since the decision by Mozilla to abandon the Suite, I am not sure
> that I like where Mozilla is going anyway. And since SeaMonkey
> doesn't fall under the Mozilla umbrella,

SeaMonkey is still a Mozilla project, even though no product.
SeaMonkey development is still part of everyday's trunk work, i.e.
SeaMonkey shares most core parts with FF & co.

> I would favor a total break with AOL/Netscape/Mozilla including NG
> and Fora(Forums).

What should be the meaning of that?
The SeaMonkey project aims at keeping the suite on track with
contemporary development, we don't want to recreate the world.
What good would a codebase split do? None, IMO.

> I realize that this may be just wishful thinking, since the finances
> are probably not in place to allow such a break at this time.

That's not "wishful thinking", that's hopefully never happening. ;-)

> At any rate, that is just my opinion.

As things currently stand - despite some problems we have - this is
definitely not the opinion of the SeaMonkey project.

Ron Lopshire

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 11:45:42 AM12/31/05
to
Karsten Düsterloh wrote:

Karsten,

1) I realize that the SeaMonkey core code comes from Mozilla/Netscape.
The SeaMonkey GUI (and application) is virtually indistinguishable
from Netscape 7.2. I have not personally used the Mozilla Suite.

2) It is my understanding, based on the posts of others in various Moz
NGs, that the SeaMonkey development team is no longer with Mozilla,
including the Foundation, mozilla.org and mozilla.com. If that is
wrong, please correct me.

3) It is my understanding, based on the posts of others in various Moz
NGs, that Mozilla (whatever that is, was or will be) decided to
abandon the Suite approach to network clienting, and go with two
different products ... Firefox as an internet browser, and Thunderbird
as an email/NNTP client. No Suite. If that is wrong, please correct me.

4) IE and OE are two different GUIs using the same core functions of
the MS OS. (Try to uninstall them on WinXP and see what happens.) And
with each subsequent OS, the distinctions seem to become less and
less. I can use IE to search through my HD, for crying out loud.
Evidently MS sees no distinction between a file on some malware
writer's server and one on my HD.

5) As I said, I don't agree with the direction that Mozilla has taken
by abandoning the Suite approach. The idea that most IE/OE users
prefer two different products is ridiculous. Most IE/OE users use IE
and OE because that is what came with their OS, and that is all that
they have ever used. Ask most PC users what browser they use and they
will say, "What's a browser?"

6) The most important things that Mozilla and SeaMonkey have going for
them is that their apps are 1) not MS, and 2) secure. This is the
niche that appeals to most FF, TB, Mozilla Suite and Netscape users.
Trying to emulate IE and OE is abandoning that niche. I already have
those POS apps on my WinXP box, and I prefer not to use them.

I have been using Netscape since Netscape 2.0, and as I said, I am
very concerned, in many ways, about the direction of Mozilla WRT their
internet applications.

Ron :)

Michael Vincent van Rantwijk

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 12:27:09 PM12/31/05
to
Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
> Ron Lopshire aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
>> Since the decision by Mozilla to abandon the Suite, I am not sure
>> that I like where Mozilla is going anyway. And since SeaMonkey
>> doesn't fall under the Mozilla umbrella,
>
> SeaMonkey is still a Mozilla project, even though no product.
> SeaMonkey development is still part of everyday's trunk work, i.e.
> SeaMonkey shares most core parts with FF & co.
>
>> I would favor a total break with AOL/Netscape/Mozilla including NG
>> and Fora(Forums).
>
> What should be the meaning of that?
> The SeaMonkey project aims at keeping the suite on track with
> contemporary development, we don't want to recreate the world.
> What good would a codebase split do? None, IMO.

Ron, you are obviously missing the real meaning of friends like the
Mozilla Foundation/Corporation, because the SeaMonkey counsel/developers
can't do it without the support of the Mozilla Foundation/Corporation,
just think about the used infrastructure.

>> I realize that this may be just wishful thinking, since the finances
>> are probably not in place to allow such a break at this time.
>
> That's not "wishful thinking", that's hopefully never happening. ;-)

A split like that will most likely end in the end of SeaMonkey
project...which I hope, just like all SeaMonkey supporters, will never
happen.

>> At any rate, that is just my opinion.
>
> As things currently stand - despite some problems we have - this is
> definitely not the opinion of the SeaMonkey project.

Karsten, what are these problems exactly, if I may ask?

Chris Ilias

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 1:57:16 PM12/31/05
to
_Karsten Düsterloh_ spoke thusly:

> Chris Ilias aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
>> I don't know where anyone said going to Google Groups was an
>> anti-spam measure.
>
> The FAQ says:
>
>> Will the newsgroups be propagated to Usenet at large? Will the
>> newsgroups be accessible through Google Groups?
>>
>> These two questions are connected; propagation has both upsides and
>> downsides. The downsides are that propagation means that we can't
>> really do post deletions, and a failure to control spam may affect
>> developer participation. It's been decided, at least initially, to
>> limit propagation to only GigaNews and Google Groups. We have
>> agreements in place with both services to not propagate messages any
>> further. Based on feedback from the community, this may change at
>> some point in the future, but deciding to allow propagation is an
>> irreversible decision so we're starting out the "safe" way. :)

Not going to usenet is the 'anti-spam measure'. Besides, as I understand
it, Google access will be read-only.

Ron Lopshire

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 2:00:01 PM12/31/05
to

Michael,

See my reply to Karsten. My post was based on the belief that the
SeaMonkey group split with Mozilla over, as the saying goes, creative
differences. This belief is based on posts by others who, IMO, should
be in a position to know whether or not this is true. As I said, I
have concerns about the direction that FF and TB are taking. I much
prefer the Suite approach, i.e., SeaMonkey.

Not trying to step on any toes, here. Just concerns, that's all. FF
and TB, are, after all, still not IE and OE. One would hope that this
would remain so.

Ron :)

Rinaldi J. Montessi

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 3:32:55 PM12/31/05
to
Ron Lopshire wrote:

=====

> See my reply to Karsten. My post was based on the belief that the
> SeaMonkey group split with Mozilla over, as the saying goes, creative
> differences. This belief is based on posts by others who, IMO, should
> be in a position to know whether or not this is true. As I said, I
> have concerns about the direction that FF and TB are taking. I much
> prefer the Suite approach, i.e., SeaMonkey.

My understanding is Mozilla wanted to scrap the Suite and concentrate on
Firefox and Thunderbird, whereas the Seamonkey group wanted to see the
Suite continue. I think there are no losers here.

Rinaldi
--
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying
of nothing.
-- Redd Foxx

Philip Chee

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 11:40:08 PM12/31/05
to
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 22:47:45 -0500, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:

> My understanding is Mozilla wanted to scrap the Suite and concentrate on
> Firefox and Thunderbird, whereas the Seamonkey group wanted to see the
> Suite continue. I think there are no losers here.

Not just "wanted to scrap". They DID scrap Mozilla Suite, just before the
final Mozilla Suite 1.8beta, annoying the hell out of a lot of people who
contributed a lot of code to the Suite on the belief that 1.8 was going to
be released in the same time frame as Firefox 1.5.

Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Real Trekkers work out at the He's Dead Gym.
* TagZilla 0.059

Rinaldi J. Montessi

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 12:26:15 AM1/1/06
to
Philip Chee wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 22:47:45 -0500, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>
>> My understanding is Mozilla wanted to scrap the Suite and concentrate on
>> Firefox and Thunderbird, whereas the Seamonkey group wanted to see the
>> Suite continue. I think there are no losers here.
>
> Not just "wanted to scrap". They DID scrap Mozilla Suite, just before the
> final Mozilla Suite 1.8beta, annoying the hell out of a lot of people who
> contributed a lot of code to the Suite on the belief that 1.8 was going to
> be released in the same time frame as Firefox 1.5.

IIRC the Mozilla Suite code went into SeaMonkey. What am I missing? I
interpret your message to indicate the code (labor) went into the bit
bucket. Clarify please.

I have been building Mozilla/SeaMonkey from CVS two to three times a
week since I can't remember when and don't recall any hiccups during the
transition.

Rinaldi
--
A witty saying proves nothing, but saying something pointless gets
people's attention.

Philip Chee

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 12:58:46 AM1/1/06
to
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:26:15 -0500, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
> Philip Chee wrote:

>> Not just "wanted to scrap". They DID scrap Mozilla Suite, just before the
>> final Mozilla Suite 1.8beta, annoying the hell out of a lot of people who
>> contributed a lot of code to the Suite on the belief that 1.8 was going to
>> be released in the same time frame as Firefox 1.5.

> IIRC the Mozilla Suite code went into SeaMonkey. What am I missing? I
> interpret your message to indicate the code (labor) went into the bit
> bucket. Clarify please.

It would have gone into the bit bucket (Mozilla 1.8 was killed off just
before release) if not for a brave bunch of volunteers who stepped up to the
plate.

> I have been building Mozilla/SeaMonkey from CVS two to three times a
> week since I can't remember when and don't recall any hiccups during the
> transition.

Well you should thank the Seamonkey council for that. Before the Seamonkey
council was formed there was no further development path for the Suite.

Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.

[ ]I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere!
* TagZilla 0.059

Rinaldi J. Montessi

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 3:01:41 AM1/1/06
to
Philip Chee wrote:
------

> It would have gone into the bit bucket (Mozilla 1.8 was killed off just
> before release) if not for a brave bunch of volunteers who stepped up to the
> plate.

Perhaps behind the scenes that may have been a reality; but to me on the
outside looking in the transition seemed flawless. Good PR control I guess.

>> I have been building Mozilla/SeaMonkey from CVS two to three times a
>> week since I can't remember when and don't recall any hiccups during the
>> transition.
>
> Well you should thank the Seamonkey council for that. Before the Seamonkey
> council was formed there was no further development path for the Suite.

Thanks for the information. And thanks again to the SeaMonkey council.
It's nice to know that all the machines I've installed the suite on
won't be left in the lurch.

Rinaldi
--
An elephant is a mouse with an operating system.

Simon Paquet

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 7:52:34 AM1/1/06
to
Ron Lopshire wrote on 31.12.2005:

> See my reply to Karsten. My post was based on the belief that the
> SeaMonkey group split with Mozilla over, as the saying goes, creative
> differences. This belief is based on posts by others who, IMO, should
> be in a position to know whether or not this is true.

The split was not over creative differences, but over QA ressources. The
Mozilla Foundation wanted to concentrate on its flagship products FF and
TB and didn't want to release Suite releases which weren't up to par
with
the quality one could expect from a official Mozilla product.

So they announced the end of the Mozilla Suite and asked volunteers to
step up and continue to maintain the Suite under a new name, which is
what happened.


--
Simon Paquet

Robert Kaiser

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 11:43:48 AM1/1/06
to
Rinaldi J. Montessi schrieb:

> Philip Chee wrote:
> ------
>> It would have gone into the bit bucket (Mozilla 1.8 was killed off just
>> before release) if not for a brave bunch of volunteers who stepped up to the
>> plate.
>
> Perhaps behind the scenes that may have been a reality; but to me on the
> outside looking in the transition seemed flawless. Good PR control I guess.

The main thing here was good cooperation between the Mozilla Foundation
and the newly formed SeaMonkey Council.

It's also improtant to see that the Foundation never wanted to see the
suite development end, they just discovered that they lack the manpower
(esp. QA people) to maintain and further develop their heavily popular
Firefox/Thunderbird product line and the less popular suite product next
to each other. Because of that, they decided to not do further
development of the suite by themselves, but from the first day they said
they would be willing to help any other team to take over development
and provide them with infrastructure, and that's also what they did.
Exactly that provided all we needed for a smooth transition.

(Of course, there are some things internally that could have done even
better in the transition, and we know areas where we'd like even more
support of them, but one has to understand that their more popular prime
products are higher in priority. Still, they have done a lot for a good
transition this last year, and in the light of the turn of the year we
should thanks them for what they did - and wish they'll continue to
support us, maybe even improve that support in the next year...)

Robert Kaiser

Robert Kaiser

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 11:51:51 AM1/1/06
to
Ron Lopshire schrieb:

> 2) It is my understanding, based on the posts of others in various Moz
> NGs, that the SeaMonkey development team is no longer with Mozilla,
> including the Foundation, mozilla.org and mozilla.com. If that is wrong,
> please correct me.

So then let me correct you ;-)

The SeaMonkey project is still fully with mozilla.org, is legally
represented by the Mozilla Foundation, and the Foundation is supporting
our project, mainly through allowing us to use their infrastructure
(project web pages, CVS repository, FTP space, newsgroups/mailing lists,
"tinderboxen" and such stuff).

In the new mozilla.* newsgroup hierarchy, we'll even have seperate user
and developer newsgroups for the SeaMonkey project (note that this group
here, n.p.m.seamonkey is originally NOT about the SeaMonkey project, but
about mozilla.org project organization, which will have a seperate and
better named group in the new hierarchy as well).

Robert Kaiser

Karsten Düsterloh

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 12:40:07 PM1/1/06
to
Michael Vincent van Rantwijk aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:

> Karsten, what are these problems exactly, if I may ask?

See also KaiRo's last paragraph in <dp90s6$k...@ripley.aoltw.net>.

Karsten Düsterloh

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 12:43:05 PM1/1/06
to
Chris Ilias aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
>>> Will the newsgroups be propagated to Usenet at large? Will the
>>> newsgroups be accessible through Google Groups?
>>>
>>> These two questions are connected; propagation has both upsides and
>>> downsides. The downsides are that propagation means that we can't
>>> really do post deletions, and a failure to control spam may affect
>>> developer participation. It's been decided, at least initially, to
>>> limit propagation to only GigaNews and Google Groups. We have
>>> agreements in place with both services to not propagate messages any
>>> further. Based on feedback from the community, this may change at
>>> some point in the future, but deciding to allow propagation is an
>>> irreversible decision so we're starting out the "safe" way. :)
>
> Not going to usenet is the 'anti-spam measure'. Besides, as I understand
> it, Google access will be read-only.

So we disagree on the interpretation of a text not written by either of
us - that doesn't prove much, but - as I wrote - we'll see. ;-)

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Chris Ilias

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 11:39:49 PM1/1/06
to
_John A._ spoke thusly on 01/01/2006 10:55 PM:
> I still don't get it. In my experience there hasn't been enough spam
> in the existing propagated groups to be noticeable. Why the concern?
>
> Propagated developer groups, and non propagated user/support groups,
> and now switching to all non propagated groups to get rid of spam
> that's not there. I think whoever's in charge of Mozilla's groups
> strategy should take a page out of George Costanza's book and just do
> the opposite of their first inclination. (Or if that's what their
> doing now they should stop.)

Of course, /you/ don't think spam is a problem. You're access this group
via Adelphia, who use Giganews' ISP Outsourcing Service for usenet.
http://www.giganews.com/news/article/40

You see how good their spam filtering is? :-)

FWIW, the decision of whether not to propagate to usenet affects so many
other characteristics than spam. I think it was just a matter of the
cons outweighing the pros. Plus, as the Giganews migration FAQ states,

"deciding to allow propagation is an irreversible decision so we're
starting out the "safe" way. :) "

Frank Wein

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 5:21:01 AM1/2/06
to
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _John A._ spoke thusly on 01/01/2006 10:55 PM:
>> I still don't get it. In my experience there hasn't been enough spam
>> in the existing propagated groups to be noticeable. Why the concern?
>>
>> Propagated developer groups, and non propagated user/support groups,
>> and now switching to all non propagated groups to get rid of spam
>> that's not there. I think whoever's in charge of Mozilla's groups
>> strategy should take a page out of George Costanza's book and just do
>> the opposite of their first inclination. (Or if that's what their
>> doing now they should stop.)
>
> Of course, /you/ don't think spam is a problem. You're access this group
> via Adelphia, who use Giganews' ISP Outsourcing Service for usenet.
> http://www.giganews.com/news/article/40

Oh i access news.mozilla.org and i still don't think there has been that
much spam. Yes, there have been some spam waves in the last year, but
most were canceled quite in time. Anyway, a good Cleanfeed install
probably would have solved this, too ;).

Frank

Ron Lopshire

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 11:14:57 AM1/2/06
to
Robert Kaiser wrote:

Thanks, Robert. We Netscape/Suite users/aficionados can now begin the
New Year with that warm and fuzzy feeling.

Happy New Year to you and yours, as well.
Ron :)

Ron Lopshire

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 11:15:05 AM1/2/06
to
John A. wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:00:01 -0500, Ron Lopshire <not...@ovbl.org>
> wrote:
> ...

>
>>Not trying to step on any toes, here. Just concerns, that's all. FF
>>and TB, are, after all, still not IE and OE. One would hope that this
>>would remain so.
>
>
> I have bad news for you in that case. Have you seen the screen shots
> of IE7? It appears MS is attempting to meet FF, at least, more than
> halfway. ;)

OMG, John. I am afraid to look. <g> At any rate, I will keep my IE
locked down, and use it only for Microsoft Updates.

Ron ;)

Ron Lopshire

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 11:15:02 AM1/2/06
to

Thanks for the clarification, Simon.

Ron :)

gwtc

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 1:50:12 PM1/2/06
to
Christian Biesinger wrote:

> Frank Wein wrote:
>
>>Oh i access news.mozilla.org and i still don't think there has been that
>>much spam.
>
>
> That depends a lot on which newsgroups you are reading...
someone using a "Digital Signature [that] is not Valid"

Chris Ilias

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 3:22:24 PM1/2/06
to
_gwtc_ spoke thusly on 02/01/2006 1:50 PM:

> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>
>> That depends a lot on which newsgroups you are reading...
> someone using a "Digital Signature [that] is not Valid"

I guess now is as good a time as any to mention that both Google Groups
and Giganews filter out messages with binary attachments in text groups.
Google and Giganews treat SMIME signatures as binary attachments. (TXT,
CSS, and ICS files are okay.)

My message is in reply to gwtc, because Christian Biesinger's message
never showed up here (Giganews).

Frank Wein

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 3:52:08 PM1/2/06
to
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 02/01/2006 1:50 PM:
>> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>>
>>> That depends a lot on which newsgroups you are reading...
>> someone using a "Digital Signature [that] is not Valid"
>
> I guess now is as good a time as any to mention that both Google Groups
> and Giganews filter out messages with binary attachments in text groups.
> Google and Giganews treat SMIME signatures as binary attachments. (TXT,
> CSS, and ICS files are okay.)
>
> My message is in reply to gwtc, because Christian Biesinger's message
> never showed up here (Giganews).

Heh, they should special-case S/MIME (or do they just filter out any
binary so you switch to their Premium account which costs more money ;) :).

Frank

gwtc

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 4:17:28 PM1/2/06
to
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 02/01/2006 1:50 PM:
>
>>Christian Biesinger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That depends a lot on which newsgroups you are reading...
>>
>>someone using a "Digital Signature [that] is not Valid"
>
>
> I guess now is as good a time as any to mention that both Google Groups
> and Giganews filter out messages with binary attachments in text groups.
> Google and Giganews treat SMIME signatures as binary attachments. (TXT,
> CSS, and ICS files are okay.)
>
> My message is in reply to gwtc, because Christian Biesinger's message
> never showed up here (Giganews).
Good, then maybe we'll see less of those vcards. And what about those
who use enigmail with PGP or GPG? Do those messages get filtered out,
too?

Chris Ilias

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 4:52:35 PM1/2/06
to
_Frank Wein_ spoke thusly on 02/01/2006 3:52 PM:

> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> I guess now is as good a time as any to mention that both Google Groups
>> and Giganews filter out messages with binary attachments in text groups.
>> Google and Giganews treat SMIME signatures as binary attachments. (TXT,
>> CSS, and ICS files are okay.)
>
> Heh, they should special-case S/MIME (or do they just filter out any
> binary so you switch to their Premium account which costs more money ;) :).

No, same filtering for every account. The only difference between
accounts (besides price) is bandwidth.
- 10 connections
- over 875 days retention
- speed test here: http://www.giganews.com/status.html


The ISP service does offer different speed caps. Do you know if Giganews
is capping the speed on news.mozilla.org?
See http://www.giganews.com/outsourcing.html

Chris Ilias

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 5:00:01 PM1/2/06
to
_gwtc_ spoke thusly on 02/01/2006 4:17 PM:

> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>> I guess now is as good a time as any to mention that both Google
>> Groups and Giganews filter out messages with binary attachments in
>> text groups. Google and Giganews treat SMIME signatures as binary
>> attachments. (TXT, CSS, and ICS files are okay.)
>
> Good, then maybe we'll see less of those vcards. And what about those
> who use enigmail with PGP or GPG? Do those messages get filtered out, too?

Messages with...
vCards: not filtered
PGP or GPG: I'm pretty sure they aren't filtered.
While we're at it, HTML isn't filtered either.

Frank Wein

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 5:07:30 PM1/2/06
to

If you use PGP/MIME, probably. You can use inline PGP so, this will not
be filtered (since it's normal text).

Frank

Chris Ilias

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 5:37:57 PM1/2/06
to
_Chris Ilias_ spoke thusly on 02/01/2006 4:52 PM:

> _Frank Wein_ spoke thusly on 02/01/2006 3:52 PM:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> I guess now is as good a time as any to mention that both Google Groups
>>> and Giganews filter out messages with binary attachments in text groups.
>>> Google and Giganews treat SMIME signatures as binary attachments. (TXT,
>>> CSS, and ICS files are okay.)
>>
>> Heh, they should special-case S/MIME (or do they just filter out any
>> binary so you switch to their Premium account which costs more money
>> ;) :).
>
> No, same filtering for every account. The only difference between
> accounts (besides price) is bandwidth.
> - 10 connections
> - over 875 days retention
> - speed test here: http://www.giganews.com/status.html
>
> The ISP service does offer different speed caps. Do you know if Giganews
> is capping the speed on news.mozilla.org?
> See http://www.giganews.com/outsourcing.html

Some more server info worth noting:
- Giganews does not honour message cancels
- XPAT searches are not supported, which means in Thunderbird 'Edit ->
Find -> Search Messages' will not work. Same goes goes for 'Tools ->
Search Messages' in SeaMonkey. See:
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147884>

Christian Biesinger

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 5:42:10 PM1/2/06
to
Chris Ilias wrote:
> Messages with...
> vCards: not filtered
> PGP or GPG: I'm pretty sure they aren't filtered.
> While we're at it, HTML isn't filtered either.

Bleh, but S/MIME is filtered? That sucks.

Frank Wein

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 6:00:19 PM1/2/06
to 2005...@ilias.ca
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 02/01/2006 4:17 PM:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess now is as good a time as any to mention that both Google
>>> Groups and Giganews filter out messages with binary attachments in
>>> text groups. Google and Giganews treat SMIME signatures as binary
>>> attachments. (TXT, CSS, and ICS files are okay.)
>>
>> Good, then maybe we'll see less of those vcards. And what about those
>> who use enigmail with PGP or GPG? Do those messages get filtered out,
>> too?
>
> Messages with...
> vCards: not filtered
> PGP or GPG: I'm pretty sure they aren't filtered.

Lets make a test, this message is GPG/MIME signed, do you see this
message Chris?

Frank
(posted&mailed)

signature.asc

Chris Ilias

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 6:07:55 PM1/2/06
to
_Frank Wein_ spoke thusly on 02/01/2006 6:00 PM:

> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> Messages with...
>> vCards: not filtered
>> PGP or GPG: I'm pretty sure they aren't filtered.
>
> Lets make a test, this message is GPG/MIME signed, do you see this
> message Chris?

Loud and clear.
Also shows on Google:
http://groups.google.com/group/netscape.public.mozilla.seamonkey/msg/21129983b6e7bf95

Message has been deleted

Ruediger Lahl

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 7:49:18 PM1/2/06
to
Frank Wein wrote:

> The new news server/infrastructure will be hosted by GigaNews, but of
> course access to the news server news.mozilla.org will remain free as it
> is right now :).
[...]
> http://www.mozilla.org/community/newsgroups.txt, there the new newsgroup
> hierarchy can be found.

Are the new newsgroups already active? I can't find them on
news.mozilla.org.
--
best regards

Chris Ilias

unread,
Jan 3, 2006, 5:52:11 AM1/3/06
to
_Ruediger Lahl_ spoke thusly on 02/01/2006 7:49 PM:

> Are the new newsgroups already active? I can't find them on
> news.mozilla.org.

No, they're not available yet. For more info on the transition see:
http://ilias.ca/blog/2005/12/gradual-transition.html

I've also created a 'New Mozilla News Server Information' page, which
should cover all enquiries.
http://ilias.ca/newsserverinfo.html
(Should I move it to wiki.mozilla.org?)

BTW, is it you or your software, that is ignoring the follow-up header?

Ruediger Lahl

unread,
Jan 3, 2006, 7:31:39 AM1/3/06
to
Chris Ilias wrote:

>> Are the new newsgroups already active? I can't find them on
>> news.mozilla.org.
>
> No, they're not available yet. For more info on the transition see:
> http://ilias.ca/blog/2005/12/gradual-transition.html

Thank you.

> BTW, is it you or your software, that is ignoring the follow-up header?

Sorry, I only read .seamonkey and forgot to announce the fup-break.
--
best regards

Emily Jackson

unread,
Jan 3, 2006, 8:54:18 AM1/3/06
to
>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Ilias <2005...@ilias.ca> writes:

Chris> Ruediger Lahl_ spoke thusly on 02/01/2006 7:49 PM:


>> Are the new newsgroups already active? I can't find them on
>> news.mozilla.org.

Chris> No, they're not available yet. For more info on the
Chris> transition see:
Chris> http://ilias.ca/blog/2005/12/gradual-transition.html

Chris> I've also created a 'New Mozilla News Server Information'
Chris> page, which should cover all enquiries.
Chris> http://ilias.ca/newsserverinfo.html (Should I move it to
Chris> wiki.mozilla.org?)

Will Giganews customers who directly subscribe to GN be able to read
these groups via GN's news server?

Thanks,

Emily

--
"If it seem slow, wait for it; it will surely come, it will not delay."
Emily Jackson
E-mail address altered; reply to m5comp AT fastmail DOT fm
<http://home.hiwaay.net/~emilyj/missjackson.html>

Michael Lefevre

unread,
Jan 3, 2006, 9:16:58 AM1/3/06
to
On 2006-01-03, Emily Jackson <m5c...@fastmail.fm.munged> wrote:
[snip]

>
> Will Giganews customers who directly subscribe to GN be able to read
> these groups via GN's news server?

Yes. At least that is clearly implied by the FAQ at
http://www.mozilla.org/community/giganews-migration.html

"Will the newsgroups be propagated to Usenet at large?

... It's been decided, at least initially, to limit propagation to only


GigaNews and Google Groups. We have agreements in place with both services
to not propagate messages any further."

--
Michael

Chris Ilias

unread,
Jan 3, 2006, 1:13:03 PM1/3/06
to
_Michael Lefevre_ spoke thusly on 03/01/2006 9:16 AM:

According to Dave Miller, "That was only intending to refer to our news
server hosted by them. Although if they do wind up visible to anyone
with a Giganews account, I don't think we'll complain. :)"
http://groups.google.com/group/netscape.public.mozilla.webtools/msg/a5c3124742809c54

news.mozilla.org and news.giganews.com will actually be the same server
(or, I guess, cluster of servers).

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 6:53:27 AM1/5/06
to
Ruediger Lahl wrote:
> Frank Wein wrote:
>
>> So the new news group hierarchy will not be propagated to the rest of
>> the Usenet like before, you can only find the new groups on
>> news.mozilla.org, GigaNews servers and on Google Groups then.
>
> Sad, truly sad ...

Why? news.mozilla.org can be accessed by anyone. We aren't cutting
anyone's newsfeed off.

Gerv

Gervase Markham

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 6:54:59 AM1/5/06
to
Chris Ilias wrote:
> Not going to usenet is the 'anti-spam measure'. Besides, as I understand
> it, Google access will be read-only.

We're not sure about that yet, actually. We hope that, if there are no
downsides, it can be read/write.

Gerv

John A.

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 9:43:29 AM1/5/06
to
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:53:27 +0000, Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org>
wrote:

Generally speaking, people like to have all the groups they read
together in one place.

And many people's preferred newsreaders are not
Mozilla/Thunderbird/Seamonkey, so they won't come preconfigured to see
news.mozilla.org (as I assume the Mozilla newsreaders are.)

And many of those newsreaders don't support multiple servers.

And many people who would need support the most wouldn't know how to
go about setting up an additional news server.

I just don't think it's a particularly smart or useful policy to
require users to do extra configuration to gain access to support,
particularly via a newsgroup. It just adds needless barriers, and that
will only hurt Mozilla in the end.

Christian Biesinger

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 10:19:56 AM1/5/06
to
John A. wrote:
> And many people's preferred newsreaders are not
> Mozilla/Thunderbird/Seamonkey, so they won't come preconfigured to see
> news.mozilla.org (as I assume the Mozilla newsreaders are.)

That assumption is wrong...

Jay Garcia

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 10:56:29 AM1/5/06
to
On 05.01.2006 08:43, John A. wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> And many people's preferred newsreaders are not
> Mozilla/Thunderbird/Seamonkey, so they won't come preconfigured to see
> news.mozilla.org (as I assume the Mozilla newsreaders are.)

There are no Mozilla-based apps that I am aware of that come
pre-configured for ANY news servers.

>
> And many of those newsreaders don't support multiple servers.

More do than don't AFAIK.

--
Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

Simon Paquet

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 11:10:08 AM1/5/06
to
John A. wrote on 05.01.2006:

>>>> So the new news group hierarchy will not be propagated to the
>>>> rest of the Usenet like before, you can only find the new groups
>>>> on news.mozilla.org, GigaNews servers and on Google Groups then.
>>>
>>> Sad, truly sad ...
>>
>> Why? news.mozilla.org can be accessed by anyone. We aren't cutting
>> anyone's newsfeed off.
>
> Generally speaking, people like to have all the groups they read
> together in one place.
>
> And many people's preferred newsreaders are not
> Mozilla/Thunderbird/Seamonkey, so they won't come preconfigured to
> see news.mozilla.org (as I assume the Mozilla newsreaders are.)

True, but since most service providers seem to ignore Usenet now, most
bundled newsreaders aren't preconfigured to a particular newsserver
anyway. So the additional work has to be done one way or another.

> And many of those newsreaders don't support multiple servers.

Which modern newsreader doesn't?

> And many people who would need support the most wouldn't know how to
> go about setting up an additional news server.

As I said above, then these people aren't here anyway, because they
can't configure their newsreader to go to the newsserver of their
service provider.

> I just don't think it's a particularly smart or useful policy to
> require users to do extra configuration to gain access to support,
> particularly via a newsgroup.

This is true for most vendor-specific hierarchies.

--
Simon Paquet

Leonidas Jones

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 11:58:28 AM1/5/06
to
John A. wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:53:27 +0000, Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Ruediger Lahl wrote:
>>> Frank Wein wrote:
>>>
>>>> So the new news group hierarchy will not be propagated to the rest of
>>>> the Usenet like before, you can only find the new groups on
>>>> news.mozilla.org, GigaNews servers and on Google Groups then.
>>> Sad, truly sad ...
>> Why? news.mozilla.org can be accessed by anyone. We aren't cutting
>> anyone's newsfeed off.
>
> Generally speaking, people like to have all the groups they read
> together in one place.

Do you have documentation of that?

For myself, and a number of others, I much prefer having separate
accounts for specific issues. news.mozilla.org has my Mozilla groups,
secnews.netscape.net has Moz user support groups (I'll miss that),
news.gmane.org has my OO.o groups, etc. With them all lumped together,
I would have more trouble keeping track of where I am.

>
> And many people's preferred newsreaders are not
> Mozilla/Thunderbird/Seamonkey, so they won't come preconfigured to see
> news.mozilla.org (as I assume the Mozilla newsreaders are.)

>
> And many of those newsreaders don't support multiple servers.


Not true at all. OE, Xnews, NC4 can all access multiple servers, as I
would think any modern newsreader can. I can get news.mozilla.org on any
one of the. The Mozilla products do not come preconfigured with any
accounts at all.

>
> And many people who would need support the most wouldn't know how to
> go about setting up an additional news server.

To access newsgroups at all, they have to be able to set up at least one
server. If you've done one, the others are not that hard to do.

>
> I just don't think it's a particularly smart or useful policy to
> require users to do extra configuration to gain access to support,
> particularly via a newsgroup. It just adds needless barriers, and that
> will only hurt Mozilla in the end.

The great unwashed don't really even know what a newsgroup is. Look at
the proliferation of Google Groups posters here. Many of these folks
only found newsgroups by doing a Google search for a problem.

I wouldn't mind Google Groups having read/write access, if they would
just clean up their lousy interface.

Lee

Michael Lefevre

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 1:09:34 PM1/5/06
to
On 2006-01-05, John A <no....@spammers.virginiaquilter.allowed.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:53:27 +0000, Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Ruediger Lahl wrote:
>>> Frank Wein wrote:
>>>
>>>> So the new news group hierarchy will not be propagated to the rest of
>>>> the Usenet like before, you can only find the new groups on
>>>> news.mozilla.org, GigaNews servers and on Google Groups then.
>>>
>>> Sad, truly sad ...
>>
>>Why? news.mozilla.org can be accessed by anyone. We aren't cutting
>>anyone's newsfeed off.
>
> Generally speaking, people like to have all the groups they read
> together in one place.
>
> And many people's preferred newsreaders are not
> Mozilla/Thunderbird/Seamonkey, so they won't come preconfigured to see
> news.mozilla.org (as I assume the Mozilla newsreaders are.)
>
> And many of those newsreaders don't support multiple servers.

You say "generally speaking" and "many people", but you seem to be
assuming that people like you (using Agent 2.x) are a majority, which I'm
sure isn't right.

> And many people who would need support the most wouldn't know how to
> go about setting up an additional news server.

The people that need the support most are unlikely to be using something
like Agent as a newsreader. In fact, they're unlikely to be using
newsgroups at all. The web-based message boards are far more active for
user support.

> I just don't think it's a particularly smart or useful policy to
> require users to do extra configuration to gain access to support,
> particularly via a newsgroup. It just adds needless barriers, and that
> will only hurt Mozilla in the end.

The user support newsgroups have always been on secnews, which certainly
requires extra configuration - it requires a secure connection to a
dedicated server. These groups that are currently propagated are the
developer groups. For support groups, this is removing a barrier rather
than adding more...

The limited number of Agent 2.x users who want to read developer groups
are probably quite capable of doing the additional configuration
necessary.

--
Michael

Chris Ilias

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 3:18:18 PM1/5/06
to
_John A._ spoke thusly on 05/01/2006 9:43 AM:

> And many people who would need support the most wouldn't know how to
> go about setting up an additional news server.
>
> I just don't think it's a particularly smart or useful policy to
> require users to do extra configuration to gain access to support,
> particularly via a newsgroup. It just adds needless barriers, and that
> will only hurt Mozilla in the end.

I know others have addressed your points, but I just wanted to add that,
presumably, when everything is set up, there will be direct links to
newsgroups on the Mozilla website. In other words, a user looking for
support goes to http://www.mozilla.com/support/ , and there will be
links, such as
news://news.mozilla.org/mozilla.support.firefox

No manual set-up required.

Martin Bagge / brother

unread,
Jan 6, 2006, 8:29:41 AM1/6/06
to
Ron Lopshire wrote:
> 1) I realize that the SeaMonkey core code comes from Mozilla/Netscape.
> The SeaMonkey GUI (and application) is virtually indistinguishable from
> Netscape 7.2. I have not personally used the Mozilla Suite.

Not really but that's not interesting here.

> 2) It is my understanding, based on the posts of others in various Moz
> NGs, that the SeaMonkey development team is no longer with Mozilla,
> including the Foundation, mozilla.org and mozilla.com. If that is wrong,
> please correct me.

Kaiser made it pretty clear.

> 3) It is my understanding, based on the posts of others in various Moz
> NGs, that Mozilla (whatever that is, was or will be) decided to abandon
> the Suite approach to network clienting, and go with two different
> products ... Firefox as an internet browser, and Thunderbird as an
> email/NNTP client. No Suite. If that is wrong, please correct me.

MoFo didn't want to spend time on the suite, that's why dedicated people
founded the new project. A project MoFo supports with hardware and such.

> 4) IE and OE are two different GUIs using the same core functions of the
> MS OS. *and som snipped out bla bla*

That's your opinion, I don't share it.

> 5) As I said, I don't agree with the direction that Mozilla has taken by
> abandoning the Suite approach. The idea that most IE/OE users prefer two
> different products is ridiculous.

Once again you make up tour mind from your part of the spectra and I
have another opinion. And for what it's worth, your wrong in the
baseline about abondoning the suite.

> 6) The most important things that Mozilla and SeaMonkey have going for
> them is that their apps are 1) not MS, and 2) secure. This is the niche
> that appeals to most FF, TB, Mozilla Suite and Netscape users. Trying to
> emulate IE and OE is abandoning that niche.

First part is pretty correct, I'm not convinced about the second one
though. I hardly know anyone using OE at all, mostly it's the cousin
that's used or for the majority a webbased agent like gmail or even hotmail.

--
/Martin Bagge
mail: mar...@bagge.nu
PGP: http://martin.bagge.nu/pgp.asc
web: http://martin.bagge.nu

Ron Lopshire

unread,
Jan 6, 2006, 12:43:58 PM1/6/06
to
Martin Bagge / brother wrote:

>
> Once again you make up tour mind from your part of the spectra and I
> have another opinion. And for what it's worth, your wrong in the
> baseline about abondoning the suite.
>

I surely hope that you are right, Martin.

Thanks for your reply, much appreciated. As I said, concerns, nothing
more.

Ron :)

PeEmm

unread,
Jan 8, 2006, 11:18:02 AM1/8/06
to
John A. wrote:

>>FWIW, the decision of whether not to propagate to usenet affects so many
>>other characteristics than spam. I think it was just a matter of the
>>cons outweighing the pros. Plus, as the Giganews migration FAQ states,
>>"deciding to allow propagation is an irreversible decision so we're
>>starting out the "safe" way. :) "
>
>
> Which other characteristics?

I'd guess another "characteristics" is the possibility of effectively
deleting unwanted messages: insults, hate postings, troll posts, and
generally controversial posts or excessively critical opinions.
--
/P.M.

Chris Ilias

unread,
Jan 8, 2006, 12:46:36 PM1/8/06
to
_PeEmm_ spoke thusly on 08/01/2006 11:18 AM:

> John A. wrote:
>
>>> FWIW, the decision of whether not to propagate to usenet affects so
>>> many other characteristics than spam.
>>
>> Which other characteristics?
>
> I'd guess another "characteristics" is the possibility of effectively
> deleting unwanted messages: insults, hate postings, troll posts, and
> generally controversial posts or excessively critical opinions.

"excessively critical opinions"? Everyone has got the right to an opinion.

Let's not forget the ability to remove a group, once it's no longer
needed. Having to deal with the inability to remove any of the current
netscape.public.mozilla* groups has been a big pain. Usenet is
eventually going to become a wasteland of obsolete newsgroups.

If this had happened a little over two years ago, there would be a group
called Firebird.

Chris Ilias

unread,
Jan 10, 2006, 4:37:43 AM1/10/06
to
_Emily Jackson_ spoke thusly on 03/01/2006 8:54 AM:

> Will Giganews customers who directly subscribe to GN be able to read
> these groups via GN's news server?

Now that the switch has happened, I can report that the new mozilla.*
groups available on news.mozilla.org are not accessible using my
Giganews personal account.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages