info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
microsoft.* hierarchy
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 15, 2021, 6:31:11 AM6/15/21
to
Hi all,
As we speak of historic hierarchies (net.*), the microsoft.* one has
also been stalled since 2009 when the msnews.microsoft.com server was
shut down.
Nonetheless, the newsgroups are still in the wide, and some of them are
active.
So maybe microsoft.* should remain in control.ctl but the comment adapted?
# Control articles for that hierarchy are not issued by Microsoft itself
# but by a Usenet active participant in order to improve the quality of
# the propagation of Microsoft newsgroups. Their official URL is:
# http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx
=> I suggest to make it unmanaged and remove PGP key & administrative
stuff. Unless someone has a better advice about that?
Web forums (https://answers.microsoft.com/) are now used by Microsoft.
I doubt the PGP key will ever serve again. Its purpose was to propagate
changes made to the official newsgroups from msnews.microsoft.com.
I still have the private key, though, and will consider deleting it.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Open the black window and type text, to fix the network. »
As we speak of historic hierarchies (net.*), the microsoft.* one has
also been stalled since 2009 when the msnews.microsoft.com server was
shut down.
Nonetheless, the newsgroups are still in the wide, and some of them are
active.
So maybe microsoft.* should remain in control.ctl but the comment adapted?
# Control articles for that hierarchy are not issued by Microsoft itself
# but by a Usenet active participant in order to improve the quality of
# the propagation of Microsoft newsgroups. Their official URL is:
# http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx
=> I suggest to make it unmanaged and remove PGP key & administrative
stuff. Unless someone has a better advice about that?
Web forums (https://answers.microsoft.com/) are now used by Microsoft.
I doubt the PGP key will ever serve again. Its purpose was to propagate
changes made to the official newsgroups from msnews.microsoft.com.
I still have the private key, though, and will consider deleting it.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Open the black window and type text, to fix the network. »
Russ Allbery
Jun 27, 2021, 11:05:32 PM6/27/21
to
Julien ÉLIE <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:
> As we speak of historic hierarchies (net.*), the microsoft.* one has
> also been stalled since 2009 when the msnews.microsoft.com server was
> shut down. Nonetheless, the newsgroups are still in the wide, and some
> of them are active. So maybe microsoft.* should remain in control.ctl
> but the comment adapted?
> # Control articles for that hierarchy are not issued by Microsoft itself
> # but by a Usenet active participant in order to improve the quality of
> # the propagation of Microsoft newsgroups. Their official URL is:
> # http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx
> => I suggest to make it unmanaged and remove PGP key & administrative
> stuff. Unless someone has a better advice about that?
Well, I think it's partly up to you whether you want to continue to
> As we speak of historic hierarchies (net.*), the microsoft.* one has
> also been stalled since 2009 when the msnews.microsoft.com server was
> shut down. Nonetheless, the newsgroups are still in the wide, and some
> of them are active. So maybe microsoft.* should remain in control.ctl
> but the comment adapted?
> # Control articles for that hierarchy are not issued by Microsoft itself
> # but by a Usenet active participant in order to improve the quality of
> # the propagation of Microsoft newsgroups. Their official URL is:
> # http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx
> => I suggest to make it unmanaged and remove PGP key & administrative
> stuff. Unless someone has a better advice about that?
maintain the hierarchy. If you don't, then making it unmanaged makes
sense, and I can understand why you may not want to take on management of
the hierarchy rather than just relaying Microsoft's group list.
That said, it's still in active use, so having a source of a canonical
group list is useful. So would pruning out the groups that no one is
using if anyone felt like doing that. Obviously, you don't have to take
that on and anyone who does that doesn't even need to use the same private
key (we can always update configurations later), but it might be an easier
transition to keep using the same one.
--
Russ Allbery (ea...@eyrie.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 28, 2021, 3:25:22 PM6/28/21
to
Hi Russ,
>> As we speak of historic hierarchies (net.*), the microsoft.* one has
>> also been stalled since 2009 when the msnews.microsoft.com server was
>> shut down. Nonetheless, the newsgroups are still in the wide, and some
>> of them are active. So maybe microsoft.* should remain in control.ctl
>> but the comment adapted?
>
>> # Control articles for that hierarchy are not issued by Microsoft itself
>> # but by a Usenet active participant in order to improve the quality of
>> # the propagation of Microsoft newsgroups. Their official URL is:
>> # http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx
>
>> => I suggest to make it unmanaged and remove PGP key & administrative
>> stuff. Unless someone has a better advice about that?
>
> Well, I think it's partly up to you whether you want to continue to
> maintain the hierarchy. If you don't, then making it unmanaged makes
> sense, and I can understand why you may not want to take on management of
> the hierarchy rather than just relaying Microsoft's group list.
I have not sent any control message since 2009 for the microsoft.*
hierarchy. Major products like latest Windows 10, upcoming Windows 11,
Office 365, Teams, Edge, etc. do not have their dedicated newsgroup.
Well, there are (at least) two choices:
- making the hierarchy unmanaged, without syncable server and PGP stuff,
but of course still listing it in control.ctl and ftp.isc.org newsgroups
file;
- trying to give it a new impulse and sending control messages to create
newsgroups from the products seen in the new Microsoft Community web
forums <https://answers.microsoft.com/>
For the second choice, it would need a bit of initial work to elaborate
the list of such groups, and decide the languages for which to create
them besides English.
And of course a bit of analysis too of the current newsgroups (which one
are still active, in which language). Some of them are no longer
relevant and can be removed.
Maybe I could send a message in a few active newsgroups to probe what
still existing users want. The may already have an idea of useful
newsgroups to create.
Surely a better strategy than giving up :-)
At least not before having tried something.
> That said, it's still in active use, so having a source of a canonical
> group list is useful. So would pruning out the groups that no one is
> using if anyone felt like doing that. Obviously, you don't have to take
> that on and anyone who does that doesn't even need to use the same private
> key (we can always update configurations later), but it might be an easier
> transition to keep using the same one.
Sounds good. Using the same key seems better, though its initial goal
changes from just syncing the Microsoft news server list.
P.-S.: I wonder whether gnu.* couldn't similarly be checked and
updated. As well as perl.* or linux.* list of mailing-list gateways.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« I had some words with my wife, and she had some paragraphs with me. »
(Sigmund Freud)
>> As we speak of historic hierarchies (net.*), the microsoft.* one has
>> also been stalled since 2009 when the msnews.microsoft.com server was
>> shut down. Nonetheless, the newsgroups are still in the wide, and some
>> of them are active. So maybe microsoft.* should remain in control.ctl
>> but the comment adapted?
>
>> # Control articles for that hierarchy are not issued by Microsoft itself
>> # but by a Usenet active participant in order to improve the quality of
>> # the propagation of Microsoft newsgroups. Their official URL is:
>> # http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx
>
>> => I suggest to make it unmanaged and remove PGP key & administrative
>> stuff. Unless someone has a better advice about that?
>
> Well, I think it's partly up to you whether you want to continue to
> maintain the hierarchy. If you don't, then making it unmanaged makes
> sense, and I can understand why you may not want to take on management of
> the hierarchy rather than just relaying Microsoft's group list.
hierarchy. Major products like latest Windows 10, upcoming Windows 11,
Office 365, Teams, Edge, etc. do not have their dedicated newsgroup.
Well, there are (at least) two choices:
- making the hierarchy unmanaged, without syncable server and PGP stuff,
but of course still listing it in control.ctl and ftp.isc.org newsgroups
file;
- trying to give it a new impulse and sending control messages to create
newsgroups from the products seen in the new Microsoft Community web
forums <https://answers.microsoft.com/>
For the second choice, it would need a bit of initial work to elaborate
the list of such groups, and decide the languages for which to create
them besides English.
And of course a bit of analysis too of the current newsgroups (which one
are still active, in which language). Some of them are no longer
relevant and can be removed.
Maybe I could send a message in a few active newsgroups to probe what
still existing users want. The may already have an idea of useful
newsgroups to create.
Surely a better strategy than giving up :-)
At least not before having tried something.
> That said, it's still in active use, so having a source of a canonical
> group list is useful. So would pruning out the groups that no one is
> using if anyone felt like doing that. Obviously, you don't have to take
> that on and anyone who does that doesn't even need to use the same private
> key (we can always update configurations later), but it might be an easier
> transition to keep using the same one.
changes from just syncing the Microsoft news server list.
P.-S.: I wonder whether gnu.* couldn't similarly be checked and
updated. As well as perl.* or linux.* list of mailing-list gateways.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« I had some words with my wife, and she had some paragraphs with me. »
(Sigmund Freud)
Russ Allbery
Jun 28, 2021, 4:08:00 PM6/28/21
to
Julien ÉLIE <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:
> P.-S.: I wonder whether gnu.* couldn't similarly be checked and
> updated. As well as perl.* or linux.* list of mailing-list gateways.
I think Marco still actively maintains linux.*, although I may be wrong.
> P.-S.: I wonder whether gnu.* couldn't similarly be checked and
> updated. As well as perl.* or linux.* list of mailing-list gateways.
perl.* and gnu.* used to be mailing list gateways (the latter used
Mailman), but I'm not sure if anyone kept that running. gnu.* used to use
my news server but stopped a long time ago. IIRC, mailing list senders
were complaining about getting spam and thought it was due to Usenet.
I created a key for gnu.* eons ago and was going to help maintain it, but
then never finished the project and it's long-since defunct.
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 30, 2021, 5:51:26 AM6/30/21
to
Hi all,
> - trying to give it a new impulse and sending control messages to create
> newsgroups from the products seen in the new Microsoft Community web
> forums <https://answers.microsoft.com/>
I'm wondering whether there couldn't be legal issues with that
(maintaining a list of microsoft.public.* newsgroup names matching
Microsoft products, now that the officiel msnews.microsoft.com server is
no longer here).
Likewise, if someone pops up and maintain an apple.* hierarchy with
Apple product names, I am unsure it will receive a great welcome when
they hear of it. Though I may be wrong about that.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Aliud est celare, aliud tacere. »
> - trying to give it a new impulse and sending control messages to create
> newsgroups from the products seen in the new Microsoft Community web
> forums <https://answers.microsoft.com/>
(maintaining a list of microsoft.public.* newsgroup names matching
Microsoft products, now that the officiel msnews.microsoft.com server is
no longer here).
Likewise, if someone pops up and maintain an apple.* hierarchy with
Apple product names, I am unsure it will receive a great welcome when
they hear of it. Though I may be wrong about that.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Aliud est celare, aliud tacere. »
b...@ripco.com
Jun 30, 2021, 7:14:47 AM6/30/21
to
Julien ?LIE <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
> I'm wondering whether there couldn't be legal issues with that
> (maintaining a list of microsoft.public.* newsgroup names matching
> Microsoft products, now that the officiel msnews.microsoft.com server is
> no longer here).
For what it's worth, not exactly the same thing but close, years ago one of
> I'm wondering whether there couldn't be legal issues with that
> (maintaining a list of microsoft.public.* newsgroup names matching
> Microsoft products, now that the officiel msnews.microsoft.com server is
> no longer here).
our clients registered the domain name microsoftsucks.com or
microsoftsux.com and within 2 days of creation we received legal threats.
They were not from MS directly but some lawyer firm that claimed to handle
trademark enforcement on behalf of them.
What was odd was, they couldn't do anything about us owning the domain but
claimed any services (email, web site) that were created would bring down
the rath of Redmond upon us. So we could have the domain name, just couldn't
use it for anything.
So it sat here for years, more than a decade with an empty zone record.
So they do seem touchy about it.
-bruce
b...@ripco.com
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 30, 2021, 8:05:07 AM6/30/21
to
Hi Bruce,
> Julien ?LIE
Oh, another encoding issue :-)
>> I'm wondering whether there couldn't be legal issues with that
>> (maintaining a list of microsoft.public.* newsgroup names matching
>> Microsoft products, now that the officiel msnews.microsoft.com server is
>> no longer here).
>
> For what it's worth, not exactly the same thing but close, years ago one of
> our clients registered the domain name microsoftsucks.com or
> microsoftsux.com and within 2 days of creation we received legal threats.
Thanks for your message.
It shows they are monitoring the use of their mark.
> So they do seem touchy about it.
The difference here is that these domain names are defaming. I don't
know how sensitive they would be for a public Usenet apple.* hierarchy
or for new microsoft.* newsgroups with Office365, Teams, Windows 11 names.
And moreover if they read offensive discussions in these (unmoderated)
newsgroups.
One could argue there already are public web sites with similar forums;
yet, moderation and removal of messages are possible in such centralized
forums...
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Je ne voudrais tout de même pas que Cléopâtre m'ait dans le nez ! »
(César)
> Julien ?LIE
Oh, another encoding issue :-)
>> I'm wondering whether there couldn't be legal issues with that
>> (maintaining a list of microsoft.public.* newsgroup names matching
>> Microsoft products, now that the officiel msnews.microsoft.com server is
>> no longer here).
>
> For what it's worth, not exactly the same thing but close, years ago one of
> our clients registered the domain name microsoftsucks.com or
> microsoftsux.com and within 2 days of creation we received legal threats.
It shows they are monitoring the use of their mark.
> So they do seem touchy about it.
know how sensitive they would be for a public Usenet apple.* hierarchy
or for new microsoft.* newsgroups with Office365, Teams, Windows 11 names.
And moreover if they read offensive discussions in these (unmoderated)
newsgroups.
One could argue there already are public web sites with similar forums;
yet, moderation and removal of messages are possible in such centralized
forums...
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Je ne voudrais tout de même pas que Cléopâtre m'ait dans le nez ! »
(César)
Rink
Jun 30, 2021, 8:12:15 AM6/30/21
to
Op 15-6-2021 om 12:31 schreef Julien ÉLIE:
I do not understand what you suggest
(because I do not know enough about control.ctl, PGP, keys, unmanaged,
etc.),
but I only want to say that the newsgroup
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
still is *THE* most busiest English language newsgroup about Windows-XP.
In 2021 per month: 100, 104, 86, 61, 315 messages.
In june 2021 already 298 messages.
Thousands of newsgroups will be jealous about those figures :-)
I remember that I had installed the microsoft newsserver.
When they switched off, we simply followed all
microsoft.* newsgroups on other newsservers.
I thought it was in 2013, but Wikipedia says june 2010.
If I understand correctly, you want to introduce new microsoft.* newsgroups?
Main English language newsgroups for other Windows OS are:
alt.windows7.general
alt.comp.os.windows-8
alt.comp.os.windows-10
For me (and a lot of other people) webforums are no alternative to usenet.
Rink
(because I do not know enough about control.ctl, PGP, keys, unmanaged,
etc.),
but I only want to say that the newsgroup
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
still is *THE* most busiest English language newsgroup about Windows-XP.
In 2021 per month: 100, 104, 86, 61, 315 messages.
In june 2021 already 298 messages.
Thousands of newsgroups will be jealous about those figures :-)
I remember that I had installed the microsoft newsserver.
When they switched off, we simply followed all
microsoft.* newsgroups on other newsservers.
I thought it was in 2013, but Wikipedia says june 2010.
If I understand correctly, you want to introduce new microsoft.* newsgroups?
Main English language newsgroups for other Windows OS are:
alt.windows7.general
alt.comp.os.windows-8
alt.comp.os.windows-10
For me (and a lot of other people) webforums are no alternative to usenet.
Rink
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 30, 2021, 12:19:27 PM6/30/21
to
Hi Rink,
> but I only want to say that the newsgroup
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
> still is *THE* most busiest English language newsgroup about Windows-XP.
>
> In 2021 per month: 100, 104, 86, 61, 315 messages.
> In june 2021 already 298 messages.
> Thousands of newsgroups will be jealous about those figures :-)
Yup, the most active newsgroups over the last year (July 2020-June 2021)
are:
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general 2083
microsoft.public.it.office.excel 1579
microsoft.public.fr.excel 1363
microsoft.public.de.money 609
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion 487
microsoft.public.de.excel 338
microsoft.public.fr.outlook 335
microsoft.public.excel.programming 323
microsoft.public.excel.misc 254
microsoft.public.outlook.general 253
microsoft.public.fr.windows.server 204
microsoft.public.word.docmanagement 122
microsoft.public.fr.office 107
microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions 107
microsoft.public.excel 104
microsoft.public.es.excel 93
microsoft.public.fr.windowsxp 80
microsoft.public.adsi.general 76
microsoft.public.nntp.test 63
microsoft.public.nl.office.excel 58
microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript 55
microsoft.public.es.word 54
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support 51
microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.caching 45
microsoft.public.powerpoint 43
microsoft.public.it.office.access 43
microsoft.public.outlook 42
microsoft.public.test.here 38
microsoft.public.fr.access 36
microsoft.public.word.pagelayout 35
microsoft.public.word.newusers 30
microsoft.public.fr.word 30
microsoft.public.access 28
microsoft.public.mac.office.word 26
microsoft.public.greatplains 26
microsoft.public.es.access 26
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp 26
microsoft.public.windows.server.general 22
microsoft.public.excel.setup 21
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion 20
And there are also spams in most of them...
So basically, there are not many real active newsgroups left in the
hierarchy!
Specifically in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, people seem to
frequently complain about posts for more recent Windows versions than
XP. It is true that they are clearly missing in the microsoft.* hierarchy.
> I remember that I had installed the microsoft newsserver.
> When they switched off, we simply followed all
> microsoft.* newsgroups on other newsservers.
> I thought it was in 2013, but Wikipedia says june 2010.
It was in 2010:
http://www.rxs-enterprises.org/fp/newsgroup-closure.aspx
"All public newsgroups will eventually be closed between June 1, 2010
and October 1, 2010. Microsoft will be closing newsgroups in a phased
approach, starting with the least active newsgroups and moving
eventually to more active ones throughout the course of the next six
months."
> If I understand correctly, you want to introduce new microsoft.*
> newsgroups?
It is currently at the state of a thought.
> Main English language newsgroups for other Windows OS are:
> alt.windows7.general
> alt.comp.os.windows-8
> alt.comp.os.windows-10
>
> For me (and a lot of other people) webforums are no alternative to usenet.
I totally understand.
There aren't many active newsgroups left in the microsoft.* hierarchy.
The question of using alt.* is good (a Windows 11 newsgroup can be
"created" there if needed, as well as other newsgroups).
If microsoft.public.windows-8, microsoft.public.windows-10 and
microsoft.public.windows-11 existed, would they be used? If people are
already accustomed to alt.comp.os.windows-8 and like, I am unsure adding
another newsgroup would be good...
> but I only want to say that the newsgroup
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
> still is *THE* most busiest English language newsgroup about Windows-XP.
>
> In 2021 per month: 100, 104, 86, 61, 315 messages.
> In june 2021 already 298 messages.
> Thousands of newsgroups will be jealous about those figures :-)
are:
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general 2083
microsoft.public.it.office.excel 1579
microsoft.public.fr.excel 1363
microsoft.public.de.money 609
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion 487
microsoft.public.de.excel 338
microsoft.public.fr.outlook 335
microsoft.public.excel.programming 323
microsoft.public.excel.misc 254
microsoft.public.outlook.general 253
microsoft.public.fr.windows.server 204
microsoft.public.word.docmanagement 122
microsoft.public.fr.office 107
microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions 107
microsoft.public.excel 104
microsoft.public.es.excel 93
microsoft.public.fr.windowsxp 80
microsoft.public.adsi.general 76
microsoft.public.nntp.test 63
microsoft.public.nl.office.excel 58
microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript 55
microsoft.public.es.word 54
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support 51
microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.caching 45
microsoft.public.powerpoint 43
microsoft.public.it.office.access 43
microsoft.public.outlook 42
microsoft.public.test.here 38
microsoft.public.fr.access 36
microsoft.public.word.pagelayout 35
microsoft.public.word.newusers 30
microsoft.public.fr.word 30
microsoft.public.access 28
microsoft.public.mac.office.word 26
microsoft.public.greatplains 26
microsoft.public.es.access 26
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp 26
microsoft.public.windows.server.general 22
microsoft.public.excel.setup 21
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion 20
And there are also spams in most of them...
So basically, there are not many real active newsgroups left in the
hierarchy!
Specifically in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, people seem to
frequently complain about posts for more recent Windows versions than
XP. It is true that they are clearly missing in the microsoft.* hierarchy.
> I remember that I had installed the microsoft newsserver.
> When they switched off, we simply followed all
> microsoft.* newsgroups on other newsservers.
> I thought it was in 2013, but Wikipedia says june 2010.
http://www.rxs-enterprises.org/fp/newsgroup-closure.aspx
"All public newsgroups will eventually be closed between June 1, 2010
and October 1, 2010. Microsoft will be closing newsgroups in a phased
approach, starting with the least active newsgroups and moving
eventually to more active ones throughout the course of the next six
months."
> If I understand correctly, you want to introduce new microsoft.*
> newsgroups?
> Main English language newsgroups for other Windows OS are:
> alt.windows7.general
> alt.comp.os.windows-8
> alt.comp.os.windows-10
>
> For me (and a lot of other people) webforums are no alternative to usenet.
There aren't many active newsgroups left in the microsoft.* hierarchy.
The question of using alt.* is good (a Windows 11 newsgroup can be
"created" there if needed, as well as other newsgroups).
If microsoft.public.windows-8, microsoft.public.windows-10 and
microsoft.public.windows-11 existed, would they be used? If people are
already accustomed to alt.comp.os.windows-8 and like, I am unsure adding
another newsgroup would be good...
Russ Allbery
Jun 30, 2021, 12:20:05 PM6/30/21
to
Julien ÉLIE <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:
> I'm wondering whether there couldn't be legal issues with that
> (maintaining a list of microsoft.public.* newsgroup names matching
> Microsoft products, now that the officiel msnews.microsoft.com server is
> no longer here).
I am quite dubious there's a *winning* legal issue, given that this is an
> I'm wondering whether there couldn't be legal issues with that
> (maintaining a list of microsoft.public.* newsgroup names matching
> Microsoft products, now that the officiel msnews.microsoft.com server is
> no longer here).
example of a trademark being used in precisely the way that it was
intended to be used. The groups are for discussing the Microsoft products
identified with the trademarks used in the group names, so there is no
market confusion.
Of course, as is always the case with legal anything, being on the correct
side mostly doesn't matter because the process of being sued is
sufficiently awful that no one would want to stick around and win the
resulting case.
I don't think Microsoft would care enough to complain, particularly given
that they started the newsgroups themselves and they've been around for
years (so there's also a principle of estoppel involved). I'm sure there
are unofficial Microsoft product forums all over the place (Reddit, for
instance) that use trademarks routinely and no one cares. But without an
official contact at Microsoft, there's always some level of uncertainty.
Julien ÉLIE
Jul 5, 2021, 8:38:38 AM7/5/21
to
Responding to myself,
> Maybe I could send a message in a few active newsgroups to probe what
> still existing users want. They may already have an idea of useful
> newsgroups to create.
In the thread "Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups" in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
(<news:sbi7j3$r53$1...@news.trigofacile.com>), 4 persons answered.
Basically, they do not see any point in creating new newsgroups in
microsoft.* because they already have newsgroups in alt.* for new
Microsoft products.
A few legacy newsgroups like the one for Windows XP are still used in
the microsoft.* hierarchy. People don't mind reading newsgroups from
different hierarchies (alt.*, microsoft.*, comp.*, local ones...) in
their news reader.
Note to Jason: they spoke about the difficulty to add groups to comp.*
(a hierarchy which would otherwise have been likely to be used to
discuss current Microsoft products). There are still Windows 95
newsgroups in comp.*; hope the new Big Eight board will give more
freshness to the hierarchy.
Currently, they prefer to go on adding groups in alt.* that suit their
needs.
And the other point for microsoft.* is the removal of dead groups (where
no one would respond to a question posted to them, even though they seem
empty). There is no consensus. It is either "no, don't touch the
hierarchy" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".
To put into a nutshell, I am under the impression people got used to
using other hierarchies than microsoft.* and it is not obvious that
there is a wish to resurrect it...
--
Julien ÉLIE
« The most effective way to remember your wife's birthday is to forget
it once… » (Nash)
> Maybe I could send a message in a few active newsgroups to probe what
> newsgroups to create.
In the thread "Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups" in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
(<news:sbi7j3$r53$1...@news.trigofacile.com>), 4 persons answered.
Basically, they do not see any point in creating new newsgroups in
microsoft.* because they already have newsgroups in alt.* for new
Microsoft products.
A few legacy newsgroups like the one for Windows XP are still used in
the microsoft.* hierarchy. People don't mind reading newsgroups from
different hierarchies (alt.*, microsoft.*, comp.*, local ones...) in
their news reader.
Note to Jason: they spoke about the difficulty to add groups to comp.*
(a hierarchy which would otherwise have been likely to be used to
discuss current Microsoft products). There are still Windows 95
newsgroups in comp.*; hope the new Big Eight board will give more
freshness to the hierarchy.
Currently, they prefer to go on adding groups in alt.* that suit their
needs.
And the other point for microsoft.* is the removal of dead groups (where
no one would respond to a question posted to them, even though they seem
empty). There is no consensus. It is either "no, don't touch the
hierarchy" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".
To put into a nutshell, I am under the impression people got used to
using other hierarchies than microsoft.* and it is not obvious that
there is a wish to resurrect it...
--
Julien ÉLIE
« The most effective way to remember your wife's birthday is to forget
it once… » (Nash)
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 5, 2021, 11:07:16 AM7/5/21
to
Julien <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
>Responding to myself,
>>Maybe I could send a message in a few active newsgroups to probe what
>>still existing users want. They may already have an idea of useful
>>newsgroups to create.
>In the thread "Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups" in
>microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
>(<news:sbi7j3$r53$1...@news.trigofacile.com>), 4 persons answered.
>Basically, they do not see any point in creating new newsgroups in
>microsoft.* because they already have newsgroups in alt.* for new
>Microsoft products.
>A few legacy newsgroups like the one for Windows XP are still used in
>the microsoft.* hierarchy. People don't mind reading newsgroups from
>different hierarchies (alt.*, microsoft.*, comp.*, local ones...) in
>their news reader.
The issue would have been the same for both comp.* and alt.*. Even if
>Responding to myself,
>>Maybe I could send a message in a few active newsgroups to probe what
>>still existing users want. They may already have an idea of useful
>>newsgroups to create.
>In the thread "Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups" in
>microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
>(<news:sbi7j3$r53$1...@news.trigofacile.com>), 4 persons answered.
>Basically, they do not see any point in creating new newsgroups in
>microsoft.* because they already have newsgroups in alt.* for new
>Microsoft products.
>A few legacy newsgroups like the one for Windows XP are still used in
>the microsoft.* hierarchy. People don't mind reading newsgroups from
>different hierarchies (alt.*, microsoft.*, comp.*, local ones...) in
>their news reader.
those of us outside the discussion taking place observed that new groups
in comp.* and alt.* were specifically redundant of counterpart groups
already in microsoft.public.*, the Microsoft News administrator had no
ability to thwart a proposal to create a group in an international
hierarchy.
Julien, you did too good a job convincing people that microsoft.public.*
would be a nonviable hierarchy once the Microsoft News server was taken
off line, so no one made any serious attempts to start groups for
subsequent Microsoft products there. You took that option off the table.
>Note to Jason: they spoke about the difficulty to add groups to comp.*
>(a hierarchy which would otherwise have been likely to be used to
>discuss current Microsoft products). There are still Windows 95
>newsgroups in comp.*; hope the new Big Eight board will give more
>freshness to the hierarchy.
>Currently, they prefer to go on adding groups in alt.* that suit their
>needs.
group in comp.* for Windows 11 would be a bad thing at this point.
>And the other point for microsoft.* is the removal of dead groups (where
>no one would respond to a question posted to them, even though they seem
>empty). There is no consensus. It is either "no, don't touch the
>hierarchy" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".
viable discussion in groups not being removed.
>To put into a nutshell, I am under the impression people got used to
>using other hierarchies than microsoft.* and it is not obvious that
>there is a wish to resurrect it...
Julien ÉLIE
Jul 6, 2021, 3:37:13 AM7/6/21
to
Hi Adam,
> Julien, you did too good a job convincing people that microsoft.public.*
> would be a nonviable hierarchy once the Microsoft News server was taken
> off line, so no one made any serious attempts to start groups for
> subsequent Microsoft products there. You took that option off the table.
We're speaking of discussions that took place more than a decade ago.
I am not under the impression I "took that option off the table". I
just sent a final checkgroups for the remaining ~500 groups still
active, that is to say the last ones that remained in
msnews.microsoft.com several months. There were more than ~1700 groups,
most of them without traffic, and I still think it was a good move from
Microsoft to clean and rationalize that huge list before stopping their
news server.
I then left the list of groups as-is, clearly stating that the PGP key
was initially created and trusted for the "replication" of the list of
newsgroups present in the Microsoft's news server.
If somebody wanted to go on "maintaining" the hierarchy and give it
another life, he could have taken that path
(<news:hs9i8m$ia$1...@news.trigofacile.com> amongst other articles I sent).
As guessed in 2010, it was not bound to happen. You even said "the
chances of someone reviving a brand-specific customer support hierarchy
after abandoned by the manufacturer are only slightly better than
Microsoft writing a decent newsreader"
(<news:hs9sf6$emq$2...@news.albasani.net>).
So, here, I just wish to recall I never said microsoft.public.* would be
a nonviable hierarchy, nor I took that option off the table...
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Sometimes in love you must accept the fact that what makes the person
you cared about happy might on the other hand leave you so lonely. »
> Julien, you did too good a job convincing people that microsoft.public.*
> would be a nonviable hierarchy once the Microsoft News server was taken
> off line, so no one made any serious attempts to start groups for
> subsequent Microsoft products there. You took that option off the table.
I am not under the impression I "took that option off the table". I
just sent a final checkgroups for the remaining ~500 groups still
active, that is to say the last ones that remained in
msnews.microsoft.com several months. There were more than ~1700 groups,
most of them without traffic, and I still think it was a good move from
Microsoft to clean and rationalize that huge list before stopping their
news server.
I then left the list of groups as-is, clearly stating that the PGP key
was initially created and trusted for the "replication" of the list of
newsgroups present in the Microsoft's news server.
If somebody wanted to go on "maintaining" the hierarchy and give it
another life, he could have taken that path
(<news:hs9i8m$ia$1...@news.trigofacile.com> amongst other articles I sent).
As guessed in 2010, it was not bound to happen. You even said "the
chances of someone reviving a brand-specific customer support hierarchy
after abandoned by the manufacturer are only slightly better than
Microsoft writing a decent newsreader"
(<news:hs9sf6$emq$2...@news.albasani.net>).
So, here, I just wish to recall I never said microsoft.public.* would be
a nonviable hierarchy, nor I took that option off the table...
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Sometimes in love you must accept the fact that what makes the person
you cared about happy might on the other hand leave you so lonely. »
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 6, 2021, 10:02:50 AM7/6/21
to
Julien <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
>Hi Adam,
>>Julien, you did too good a job convincing people that microsoft.public.*
>>would be a nonviable hierarchy once the Microsoft News server was taken
>>off line, so no one made any serious attempts to start groups for
>>subsequent Microsoft products there. You took that option off the table.
>We're speaking of discussions that took place more than a decade ago.
>I am not under the impression I "took that option off the table". I
>just sent a final checkgroups for the remaining ~500 groups still
>active, that is to say the last ones that remained in
>msnews.microsoft.com several months.
I thought I recalled you had sent rmgroups for the remaining groups.
>Hi Adam,
>>Julien, you did too good a job convincing people that microsoft.public.*
>>would be a nonviable hierarchy once the Microsoft News server was taken
>>off line, so no one made any serious attempts to start groups for
>>subsequent Microsoft products there. You took that option off the table.
>We're speaking of discussions that took place more than a decade ago.
>I am not under the impression I "took that option off the table". I
>just sent a final checkgroups for the remaining ~500 groups still
>active, that is to say the last ones that remained in
>msnews.microsoft.com several months.
My error. I apologize.
>. . .
Julien ÉLIE
Jul 6, 2021, 10:57:56 AM7/6/21
to
It is true that we discussed several options at that time, amongst which
were sending rmgroups for the remaining groups. That path was not taken
(thanks to the share of your point of view, as well as others, at that
time, pros and cons).
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Le cercle n'est qu'une ligne droite revenue à son point de départ. »
(San-Antonio)
Julien ÉLIE
Jul 14, 2021, 4:09:44 AM7/14/21
to
Hi Russ,
>> P.-S.: I wonder whether gnu.* couldn't similarly be checked and
>> updated. As well as perl.* or linux.* list of mailing-list gateways.
>
> I think Marco still actively maintains linux.*, although I may be wrong.
Checkgroups for linux.* are sent from time to time. Last one a few
months ago, in January 2021.
However, no changes since 2004; that's why I wonder whether the list was
up-to-date (no new mailing-list to gateway, or new groups or defunct
ones to remove?)
> I created a key for gnu.* eons ago and was going to help maintain it, but
> then never finished the project and it's long-since defunct.
Then shouldn't gnu.* marked as unmanaged or defunct?
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Vti, non abuti. »
>> P.-S.: I wonder whether gnu.* couldn't similarly be checked and
>> updated. As well as perl.* or linux.* list of mailing-list gateways.
>
> I think Marco still actively maintains linux.*, although I may be wrong.
months ago, in January 2021.
However, no changes since 2004; that's why I wonder whether the list was
up-to-date (no new mailing-list to gateway, or new groups or defunct
ones to remove?)
> I created a key for gnu.* eons ago and was going to help maintain it, but
> then never finished the project and it's long-since defunct.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Vti, non abuti. »
Julien ÉLIE
Jul 14, 2021, 4:28:15 AM7/14/21
to
Hi Adam,
>> I just sent a final checkgroups for the remaining ~500 groups still
>> active, that is to say the last ones that remained in
>> msnews.microsoft.com several months.
>
> I thought I recalled you had sent rmgroups for the remaining groups.
The question now is whether a bit more of house-keeping should be done,
to resume the list to ~100 groups or so (at least on news servers still
honouring these control messages). It may make the hierarchy more
readable and usable for possible newcomers.
Too bad there are not many general newsgroups (components usually
contain the version: "windows98", "windowsxp", etc. and not "windows.98"
or "windows.xp") so a general catch-all newsgroup cannot be preserved.
And I am unsure creating such general groups would be a good thing
anyway at that time.
>> I just sent a final checkgroups for the remaining ~500 groups still
>> active, that is to say the last ones that remained in
>> msnews.microsoft.com several months.
>
> I thought I recalled you had sent rmgroups for the remaining groups.
to resume the list to ~100 groups or so (at least on news servers still
honouring these control messages). It may make the hierarchy more
readable and usable for possible newcomers.
Too bad there are not many general newsgroups (components usually
contain the version: "windows98", "windowsxp", etc. and not "windows.98"
or "windows.xp") so a general catch-all newsgroup cannot be preserved.
And I am unsure creating such general groups would be a good thing
anyway at that time.
Julien ÉLIE
Mar 5, 2023, 8:31:58 AM3/5/23
to
Following an old thread from July 2021:
> In the thread "Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups" in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
> (<news:sbi7j3$r53$1...@news.trigofacile.com>), 4 persons answered.
>
> Basically, they do not see any point in creating new newsgroups in
> microsoft.* because they already have newsgroups in alt.* for new
> Microsoft products.
> A few legacy newsgroups like the one for Windows XP are still used in
> the microsoft.* hierarchy. People don't mind reading newsgroups from
> different hierarchies (alt.*, microsoft.*, comp.*, local ones...) in
> their news reader.
>
hierarchy can now be advertised as unmanaged. The syncable server
msnews.microsoft.com, contact, URL and key information can be removed
from control.ctl.
The comment could be changed to say that the current list of newsgroups
reflect the ones present in msnews.microsoft.com in May 2010. Then
Microsoft began closing newsgroups and migrating users to Microsoft
forums that include Microsoft Answers, TechNet and MSDN. Their news
server was discontinued in October 2010.
> Note to Jason: they spoke about the difficulty to add groups to comp.*
> (a hierarchy which would otherwise have been likely to be used to
> discuss current Microsoft products). There are still Windows 95
> newsgroups in comp.*; hope the new Big Eight board will give more
> freshness to the hierarchy.
I still reckon that if new newsgroups for Microsoft products are wished,
the comp.* hierarchy is a suitable one (besides of course alt.* where
recent newsgroups exist for latest Windows 11).
Instead of Windows 95 newsgroups still present in comp.*, a more generic
one could be useful for Windows and maybe another generic one for
Microsoft 365 products...
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Le carré est un triangle qui a réussi, ou une circonférence qui a mal
tourné. » (Pierre Dac)
> In the thread "Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups" in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
> (<news:sbi7j3$r53$1...@news.trigofacile.com>), 4 persons answered.
>
> Basically, they do not see any point in creating new newsgroups in
> microsoft.* because they already have newsgroups in alt.* for new
> Microsoft products.
> A few legacy newsgroups like the one for Windows XP are still used in
> the microsoft.* hierarchy. People don't mind reading newsgroups from
> different hierarchies (alt.*, microsoft.*, comp.*, local ones...) in
> their news reader.
>
> Currently, they prefer to go on adding groups in alt.* that suit their
> needs.
As I will no longer send any control messages for microsoft.*, this
> needs.
hierarchy can now be advertised as unmanaged. The syncable server
msnews.microsoft.com, contact, URL and key information can be removed
from control.ctl.
The comment could be changed to say that the current list of newsgroups
reflect the ones present in msnews.microsoft.com in May 2010. Then
Microsoft began closing newsgroups and migrating users to Microsoft
forums that include Microsoft Answers, TechNet and MSDN. Their news
server was discontinued in October 2010.
> Note to Jason: they spoke about the difficulty to add groups to comp.*
> (a hierarchy which would otherwise have been likely to be used to
> discuss current Microsoft products). There are still Windows 95
> newsgroups in comp.*; hope the new Big Eight board will give more
> freshness to the hierarchy.
the comp.* hierarchy is a suitable one (besides of course alt.* where
recent newsgroups exist for latest Windows 11).
Instead of Windows 95 newsgroups still present in comp.*, a more generic
one could be useful for Windows and maybe another generic one for
Microsoft 365 products...
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Le carré est un triangle qui a réussi, ou une circonférence qui a mal
tourné. » (Pierre Dac)
Thomas Hochstein
Mar 5, 2023, 9:30:03 AM3/5/23
to
Julien ÉLIE wrote:
>> Note to Jason: they spoke about the difficulty to add groups to comp.*
>> (a hierarchy which would otherwise have been likely to be used to
>> discuss current Microsoft products). There are still Windows 95
>> newsgroups in comp.*; hope the new Big Eight board will give more
>> freshness to the hierarchy.
>
> I still reckon that if new newsgroups for Microsoft products are wished,
> the comp.* hierarchy is a suitable one (besides of course alt.* where
> recent newsgroups exist for latest Windows 11).
That would be appropriate, yes. Back in 2010, some people made a list with
>> Note to Jason: they spoke about the difficulty to add groups to comp.*
>> (a hierarchy which would otherwise have been likely to be used to
>> discuss current Microsoft products). There are still Windows 95
>> newsgroups in comp.*; hope the new Big Eight board will give more
>> freshness to the hierarchy.
>
> I still reckon that if new newsgroups for Microsoft products are wished,
> the comp.* hierarchy is a suitable one (besides of course alt.* where
> recent newsgroups exist for latest Windows 11).
replacements for the 129 German language groups in microsoft.public.de.*
[1]; most of the active groups already had a (mostly) matching newsgroup
in de.*, and some missing ones were created (or moved), i.e. for
VisualBasic and MS Office components.
> Instead of Windows 95 newsgroups still present in comp.*, a more generic
> one could be useful for Windows and maybe another generic one for
> Microsoft 365 products...
-thh
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 5, 2023, 10:36:20 AM3/5/23
to
Julien <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
>Following an old thread from July 2021:
>>In the thread "Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups" in
>>microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
>>(<news:sbi7j3$r53$1...@news.trigofacile.com>), 4 persons answered.
>>Basically, they do not see any point in creating new newsgroups in
>>microsoft.* because they already have newsgroups in alt.* for new
>>Microsoft products.
>>A few legacy newsgroups like the one for Windows XP are still used in
>>the microsoft.* hierarchy. People don't mind reading newsgroups from
>>different hierarchies (alt.*, microsoft.*, comp.*, local ones...) in
>>their news reader.
>>Currently, they prefer to go on adding groups in alt.* that suit their
>>needs.
>As I will no longer send any control messages for microsoft.*, this
>hierarchy can now be advertised as unmanaged.
I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
>Following an old thread from July 2021:
>>In the thread "Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups" in
>>microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
>>(<news:sbi7j3$r53$1...@news.trigofacile.com>), 4 persons answered.
>>Basically, they do not see any point in creating new newsgroups in
>>microsoft.* because they already have newsgroups in alt.* for new
>>Microsoft products.
>>A few legacy newsgroups like the one for Windows XP are still used in
>>the microsoft.* hierarchy. People don't mind reading newsgroups from
>>different hierarchies (alt.*, microsoft.*, comp.*, local ones...) in
>>their news reader.
>>Currently, they prefer to go on adding groups in alt.* that suit their
>>needs.
>As I will no longer send any control messages for microsoft.*, this
>hierarchy can now be advertised as unmanaged.
do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.
In an administered hierarchy, the hierarchy administrator sends the
newgroup message on behalf of the proponent. In an unadministered
hierarchy, the proponent sends the newgroup message himself.
In a former institutional hierarchy, there can be no proponents. If the
institution itself isn't out of business and wants to resume
administering the hierarchy itself (which has never happened), that
would be acceptable. But unless that happens, just leave the newsgroups
as they were before the decision was made to stop maintaining
newsgroups. No one at all should issue control messages.
>. . .
Julien ÉLIE
Mar 5, 2023, 3:59:44 PM3/5/23
to
Hi Adam,
> I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
> do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
> hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.
"Unmanaged" means there's no longer a control.ctl entry for that
hierarchy. The default one for control.ctl applies:
## Default (for any group)
newgroup:*:*:mail
rmgroup:*:*:mail
The list of microsoft.* newsgroups still remains in the active and
newsgroups file in ftp.isc.org.
As I suggested to keep a comment, I agree "unmanaged" is not the right
term. Maybe the term "historic" is better?
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=historic
Like un.* which has the following entry, but for microsoft.* we no
longer need the PGP entries, but just keep the first 2 drop lines.
## UN (*HISTORIC* -- The United Nations)
#
# This hierarchy is not entirely defunct, but it receives very little
# traffic and is included primarily for the sake of completeness.
#
# Admin group: un.public.usenet.admin
# *PGP* See comment at top of file.
newgroup:*:un.*:drop
rmgroup:*:un.*:drop
checkgroups:ne...@news.itu.int:un.*:verify-...@news.itu.int
newgroup:ne...@news.itu.int:un.*:verify-...@news.itu.int
rmgroup:ne...@news.itu.int:un.*:verify-...@news.itu.int
> I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
> do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
> hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.
hierarchy. The default one for control.ctl applies:
## Default (for any group)
newgroup:*:*:mail
rmgroup:*:*:mail
The list of microsoft.* newsgroups still remains in the active and
newsgroups file in ftp.isc.org.
As I suggested to keep a comment, I agree "unmanaged" is not the right
term. Maybe the term "historic" is better?
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=historic
Like un.* which has the following entry, but for microsoft.* we no
longer need the PGP entries, but just keep the first 2 drop lines.
## UN (*HISTORIC* -- The United Nations)
#
# This hierarchy is not entirely defunct, but it receives very little
# traffic and is included primarily for the sake of completeness.
#
# Admin group: un.public.usenet.admin
# *PGP* See comment at top of file.
newgroup:*:un.*:drop
rmgroup:*:un.*:drop
checkgroups:ne...@news.itu.int:un.*:verify-...@news.itu.int
newgroup:ne...@news.itu.int:un.*:verify-...@news.itu.int
rmgroup:ne...@news.itu.int:un.*:verify-...@news.itu.int
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 5, 2023, 5:41:52 PM3/5/23
to
Julien <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
>Hi Adam,
>>I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
>>do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
>>hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.
>"Unmanaged" means there's no longer a control.ctl entry for that
>hierarchy.
We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
>Hi Adam,
>>I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
>>do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
>>hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.
>"Unmanaged" means there's no longer a control.ctl entry for that
>hierarchy.
unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
should be referred to in that manner.
>The default one for control.ctl applies:
>## Default (for any group)
>newgroup:*:*:mail
>rmgroup:*:*:mail
>The list of microsoft.* newsgroups still remains in the active and
>newsgroups file in ftp.isc.org.
>As I suggested to keep a comment, I agree "unmanaged" is not the right
>term. Maybe the term "historic" is better?
> http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=historic
In the other thread, I nominated the category "former institutional
hierarchy".
Julien ÉLIE
Mar 6, 2023, 1:13:47 PM3/6/23
to
Hi Adam,
>>> I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
>>> do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
>>> hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.
>
>> "Unmanaged" means there's no longer a control.ctl entry for that
>> hierarchy.
>
> We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
> unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
> should be referred to in that manner.
OK, I'll change the "unmanaged" term I used, which was not appropriate.
>>> I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
>>> do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
>>> hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.
>
>> "Unmanaged" means there's no longer a control.ctl entry for that
>> hierarchy.
>
> We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
> unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
> should be referred to in that manner.
>> As I suggested to keep a comment, I agree "unmanaged" is not the right
>> term. Maybe the term "historic" is better?
>
> In the other thread, I nominated the category "former institutional
> hierarchy".
All of the following hierarchies are not institutional ones:
> hierarchy".
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged
I'm looking for a better term. Maybe "legacy" or "unreferenced"? (or
calling them "historic" too)
As or microsoft.*, it can fall back in the existing "historic" category.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Pour une personne optimiste, le verre est à moitié plein. Pour une
personne pessimiste, il est à moitié vide. Pour l'informaticien, il
est deux fois plus grand que nécessaire. »
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 6, 2023, 4:13:34 PM3/6/23
to
Julien LIE <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
>>>>do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
>>>>hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.
>>>"Unmanaged" means there's no longer a control.ctl entry for that
>>>hierarchy.
>>We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
>>unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
>>should be referred to in that manner.
>OK, I'll change the "unmanaged" term I used, which was not appropriate.
>>>As I suggested to keep a comment, I agree "unmanaged" is not the right
>>>term. Maybe the term "historic" is better?
>>In the other thread, I nominated the category "former institutional
>>hierarchy".
>All of the following hierarchies are not institutional ones:
> http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged
Goodness. That's a long list. Yes I see former regional hierarchies in there.
>>>>I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
>>>>do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
>>>>hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.
>>>"Unmanaged" means there's no longer a control.ctl entry for that
>>>hierarchy.
>>We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
>>unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
>>should be referred to in that manner.
>OK, I'll change the "unmanaged" term I used, which was not appropriate.
>>>As I suggested to keep a comment, I agree "unmanaged" is not the right
>>>term. Maybe the term "historic" is better?
>>In the other thread, I nominated the category "former institutional
>>hierarchy".
>All of the following hierarchies are not institutional ones:
> http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged
>I'm looking for a better term. Maybe "legacy" or "unreferenced"? (or
>calling them "historic" too)
>As or microsoft.*, it can fall back in the existing "historic" category.
don't care for "unreferenced" given that you are making a reference.
Julien ÉLIE
May 30, 2023, 2:55:23 PM5/30/23
to
Hi Adam,
> We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
> unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
> should be referred to in that manner.
I've at last reorganized the listing, following our previous discussion.
Only alt.* and free.* are now in the unmanaged page. The previously
listed ones were now in the historic section.
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged
--
Julien ÉLIE
« PowerPoint allows speakers to pretend that they are giving a real
talk, and audiences to pretend that they are listening. » (Edward R.
Tufte, _The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint_)
> We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
> unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
> should be referred to in that manner.
Only alt.* and free.* are now in the unmanaged page. The previously
listed ones were now in the historic section.
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged
--
Julien ÉLIE
« PowerPoint allows speakers to pretend that they are giving a real
talk, and audiences to pretend that they are listening. » (Edward R.
Tufte, _The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint_)
Adam H. Kerman
May 30, 2023, 5:46:45 PM5/30/23
to
Julien <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
>Hi Adam,
>>We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
>>unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
>>should be referred to in that manner.
>I've at last reorganized the listing, following our previous discussion.
> Only alt.* and free.* are now in the unmanaged page. The previously
>listed ones were now in the historic section.
> http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged
That's reasonable. Thank you
>Hi Adam,
>>We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
>>unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
>>should be referred to in that manner.
>I've at last reorganized the listing, following our previous discussion.
> Only alt.* and free.* are now in the unmanaged page. The previously
>listed ones were now in the historic section.
> http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged
I don't have any new comments about the categories that you haven't
heard me make in the past.
Shouldn't mod.* be a reserved hierarchy? I was going to ask about net.*
as well, but you listed it as historic.
Julien ÉLIE
May 31, 2023, 1:53:54 PM5/31/23
to
Hi Adam,
>> I've at last reorganized the listing, following our previous discussion.
>> Only alt.* and free.* are now in the unmanaged page. The previously
>> listed ones were now in the historic section.
>
>> http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged
>
> That's reasonable. Thank you
Thanks for having had a look.
> I don't have any new comments about the categories that you haven't
> heard me make in the past.
Yes, sure, I remember. The point is that these web pages are a visual
representation of the control.ctl / PGPKEYS / newsgroups files. Changes
should be made upstream.
> Shouldn't mod.* be a reserved hierarchy? I was going to ask about net.*
> as well, but you listed it as historic.
For example, if mod.* should be listed as reserved (which it could, like
example.*, general.* or test.*), the change to do is in the following file:
https://github.com/rra/control-archive/blob/master/config/mod
"type: defunct" should be changed to "type: reserved"
Incidentally, I see in
https://github.com/rra/control-archive/blob/master/forms/control.ctl.pre
that example.*, local.* and private.* (other already reserved groups)
could also be added to this special entry:
## Special reserved groups
newgroup:*:control|general|junk|test|to:drop
rmgroup:*:control|general|junk|test|to:drop
If you already have a list of such changes to do, you may want to put it
into an issue in https://github.com/rra/control-archive/issues
When Russ has a bit of time for that, it will facilitate the integration
instead of digging in threads in this newsgroup.
(Or course, a direct pull request with the changed files would be even
better if you happen to know how git works.)
net.* is said to be "a failed experiment which has now been abandoned"
in the comments. Would you have seen it in another category than historic?
As the control.ctl entry is "drop" for newgroup and rmgroup, it is not a
"public managed" hierarchy. I previously listed it under "public
unmanaged" but now that only alt.* and free.* are considered to be
unmanaged, I moved all these hierarchies without a control.ctl entry
with an explicit e-mail adress to the "historic" state.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Ta remise sur pied lui a fait perdre la tête ! » (Astérix)
>> I've at last reorganized the listing, following our previous discussion.
>> Only alt.* and free.* are now in the unmanaged page. The previously
>> listed ones were now in the historic section.
>
>> http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged
>
> That's reasonable. Thank you
> I don't have any new comments about the categories that you haven't
> heard me make in the past.
representation of the control.ctl / PGPKEYS / newsgroups files. Changes
should be made upstream.
> Shouldn't mod.* be a reserved hierarchy? I was going to ask about net.*
> as well, but you listed it as historic.
example.*, general.* or test.*), the change to do is in the following file:
https://github.com/rra/control-archive/blob/master/config/mod
"type: defunct" should be changed to "type: reserved"
Incidentally, I see in
https://github.com/rra/control-archive/blob/master/forms/control.ctl.pre
that example.*, local.* and private.* (other already reserved groups)
could also be added to this special entry:
## Special reserved groups
newgroup:*:control|general|junk|test|to:drop
rmgroup:*:control|general|junk|test|to:drop
If you already have a list of such changes to do, you may want to put it
into an issue in https://github.com/rra/control-archive/issues
When Russ has a bit of time for that, it will facilitate the integration
instead of digging in threads in this newsgroup.
(Or course, a direct pull request with the changed files would be even
better if you happen to know how git works.)
net.* is said to be "a failed experiment which has now been abandoned"
in the comments. Would you have seen it in another category than historic?
As the control.ctl entry is "drop" for newgroup and rmgroup, it is not a
"public managed" hierarchy. I previously listed it under "public
unmanaged" but now that only alt.* and free.* are considered to be
unmanaged, I moved all these hierarchies without a control.ctl entry
with an explicit e-mail adress to the "historic" state.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Ta remise sur pied lui a fait perdre la tête ! » (Astérix)
Adam H. Kerman
May 31, 2023, 4:17:41 PM5/31/23
to
Julien <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
hierarchies are listed:
it-alt.*
oesterreich.*
>>Shouldn't mod.* be a reserved hierarchy? I was going to ask about net.*
>>as well, but you listed it as historic.
>For example, if mod.* should be listed as reserved (which it could, like
>example.*, general.* or test.*), the change to do is in the following file:
> https://github.com/rra/control-archive/blob/master/config/mod
>"type: defunct" should be changed to "type: reserved"
>Incidentally, I see in
> https://github.com/rra/control-archive/blob/master/forms/control.ctl.pre
>that example.*, local.* and private.* (other already reserved groups)
>could also be added to this special entry:
>## Special reserved groups
>newgroup:*:control|general|junk|test|to:drop
>rmgroup:*:control|general|junk|test|to:drop
>If you already have a list of such changes to do, you may want to put it
>into an issue in https://github.com/rra/control-archive/issues
Ok. I'll see if I can do that.
>When Russ has a bit of time for that, it will facilitate the integration
>instead of digging in threads in this newsgroup.
>(Or course, a direct pull request with the changed files would be even
>better if you happen to know how git works.)
>net.* is said to be "a failed experiment which has now been abandoned"
>in the comments. Would you have seen it in another category than historic?
>As the control.ctl entry is "drop" for newgroup and rmgroup, it is not a
>"public managed" hierarchy. I previously listed it under "public
>unmanaged" but now that only alt.* and free.* are considered to be
>unmanaged, I moved all these hierarchies without a control.ctl entry
>with an explicit e-mail adress to the "historic" state.
net.* was of course the pre-Great Renaming top-level hierarchy in B News
days. Usenet II reused the defunct hierarchy because it hadn't been
reserved, but that's not the reason for failure. I suppose leave it
listed as historic but add a note about its pre-Great Renaming use.
mod.* was the B News top-level hierarchy for moderated groups before
things were recoded so that a proto-article could be sent in email to
the moderator in the newsreader.
This hierarchy should definitely be reserved.
fa.* (from ARPANET) were gatewayed mailing lists. I have no idea how
clients worked in B News days, but I'm guessing that you had the same
problem as moderated groups, no way to send the proto-article to the
list posting address with the newsreader.
I'd reserve that too.
I recall fj.* (from Japan), which I think were gated mailing lists as well.
Good heavens. It's listed as still active.
I'll write up some notes and send it to github.
Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
hierarchies are listed:
it-alt.*
oesterreich.*
>>Shouldn't mod.* be a reserved hierarchy? I was going to ask about net.*
>>as well, but you listed it as historic.
>For example, if mod.* should be listed as reserved (which it could, like
>example.*, general.* or test.*), the change to do is in the following file:
> https://github.com/rra/control-archive/blob/master/config/mod
>"type: defunct" should be changed to "type: reserved"
>Incidentally, I see in
> https://github.com/rra/control-archive/blob/master/forms/control.ctl.pre
>that example.*, local.* and private.* (other already reserved groups)
>could also be added to this special entry:
>## Special reserved groups
>newgroup:*:control|general|junk|test|to:drop
>rmgroup:*:control|general|junk|test|to:drop
>If you already have a list of such changes to do, you may want to put it
>into an issue in https://github.com/rra/control-archive/issues
>When Russ has a bit of time for that, it will facilitate the integration
>instead of digging in threads in this newsgroup.
>(Or course, a direct pull request with the changed files would be even
>better if you happen to know how git works.)
>net.* is said to be "a failed experiment which has now been abandoned"
>in the comments. Would you have seen it in another category than historic?
>As the control.ctl entry is "drop" for newgroup and rmgroup, it is not a
>"public managed" hierarchy. I previously listed it under "public
>unmanaged" but now that only alt.* and free.* are considered to be
>unmanaged, I moved all these hierarchies without a control.ctl entry
>with an explicit e-mail adress to the "historic" state.
days. Usenet II reused the defunct hierarchy because it hadn't been
reserved, but that's not the reason for failure. I suppose leave it
listed as historic but add a note about its pre-Great Renaming use.
mod.* was the B News top-level hierarchy for moderated groups before
things were recoded so that a proto-article could be sent in email to
the moderator in the newsreader.
This hierarchy should definitely be reserved.
fa.* (from ARPANET) were gatewayed mailing lists. I have no idea how
clients worked in B News days, but I'm guessing that you had the same
problem as moderated groups, no way to send the proto-article to the
list posting address with the newsreader.
I'd reserve that too.
I recall fj.* (from Japan), which I think were gated mailing lists as well.
Good heavens. It's listed as still active.
I'll write up some notes and send it to github.
Julien ÉLIE
May 31, 2023, 5:23:54 PM5/31/23
to
Hi Adam,
> Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
> hierarchies are listed:
>
> it-alt.*
> oesterreich.*
Oh indeed, I could especially mark them as "unmanaged" too.
I see there is no newsgroups for these two hierarchies in the
ftp.isc.org newsgroups file though, contrary to alt.* and free.*.
oesterreich.* seems to still be somehow active as their web site was
updated in 2022 :
http://www.tahina.priv.at/~cm/oe/index.en.html
> mod.* was the B News top-level hierarchy for moderated groups before
> things were recoded so that a proto-article could be sent in email to
> the moderator in the newsreader.
>
These are pretty useful and interesting information.
Worthwhile keeping somewhere. I open a new thread about that.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information
available. » (Benford's law)
> Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
> hierarchies are listed:
>
> it-alt.*
> oesterreich.*
I see there is no newsgroups for these two hierarchies in the
ftp.isc.org newsgroups file though, contrary to alt.* and free.*.
oesterreich.* seems to still be somehow active as their web site was
updated in 2022 :
http://www.tahina.priv.at/~cm/oe/index.en.html
> mod.* was the B News top-level hierarchy for moderated groups before
> things were recoded so that a proto-article could be sent in email to
> the moderator in the newsreader.
>
> fa.* (from ARPANET) were gatewayed mailing lists. I have no idea how
> clients worked in B News days, but I'm guessing that you had the same
> problem as moderated groups, no way to send the proto-article to the
> list posting address with the newsreader.
[...]> I'll write up some notes and send it to github.
> clients worked in B News days, but I'm guessing that you had the same
> problem as moderated groups, no way to send the proto-article to the
> list posting address with the newsreader.
These are pretty useful and interesting information.
Worthwhile keeping somewhere. I open a new thread about that.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information
available. » (Benford's law)
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 8, 2023, 1:19:45 PM6/8/23
to
Hi Adam,
> Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
> hierarchies are listed:
>
> it-alt.*
> oesterreich.*
While looking at making the change in the web pages, I see we did not
speak about other alternative hierarchies.
Should no.alt.* and nl-alt.* also considered as "unmanaged" hierarchies?
They both have an associated PGP key but I do not know what is the
policy to create a newsgroup? Is it intended after any demand of
someone and a signed control article is then sent, or is there a
validation by a sort of Board?
no.alt.* has 41 newsgroups listed in ftp.isc.org, nl-alt.* only 3.
And what for de.alt.*? Shouldn't it be considered as "unmanaged"?
If I remember well, there's a possibility to create any newsgroup in
de.alt.* (its control.ctl entry has a doit for a newgroup control
article) and for the sake of not removing them with de.* PGP-signed
checkgroups, they are included in de.* checkgroups.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Tant qu'il y a des marmites, il y a de l'espoir ! » (Astérix)
> Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
> hierarchies are listed:
>
> it-alt.*
> oesterreich.*
speak about other alternative hierarchies.
Should no.alt.* and nl-alt.* also considered as "unmanaged" hierarchies?
They both have an associated PGP key but I do not know what is the
policy to create a newsgroup? Is it intended after any demand of
someone and a signed control article is then sent, or is there a
validation by a sort of Board?
no.alt.* has 41 newsgroups listed in ftp.isc.org, nl-alt.* only 3.
And what for de.alt.*? Shouldn't it be considered as "unmanaged"?
If I remember well, there's a possibility to create any newsgroup in
de.alt.* (its control.ctl entry has a doit for a newgroup control
article) and for the sake of not removing them with de.* PGP-signed
checkgroups, they are included in de.* checkgroups.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Tant qu'il y a des marmites, il y a de l'espoir ! » (Astérix)
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 8, 2023, 4:30:42 PM6/8/23
to
Julien <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
>Hi Adam,
>>Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
>>hierarchies are listed:
>> it-alt.*
>> oesterreich.*
>While looking at making the change in the web pages, I see we did not
>speak about other alternative hierarchies.
I had simply noticed it-alt.* and oesterreich.* in rone's unified
>Hi Adam,
>>Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
>>hierarchies are listed:
>> it-alt.*
>> oesterreich.*
>While looking at making the change in the web pages, I see we did not
>speak about other alternative hierarchies.
control.clt and your generated list. I don't have first hand knowledge.
>Should no.alt.* and nl-alt.* also considered as "unmanaged" hierarchies?
>They both have an associated PGP key but I do not know what is the
>policy to create a newsgroup? Is it intended after any demand of
>someone and a signed control article is then sent, or is there a
>validation by a sort of Board?
>no.alt.* has 41 newsgroups listed in ftp.isc.org, nl-alt.* only 3.
use a PGP key, even if there is some informality about adding a group to
checkgroups, I'd call that "managed", given that the proponent would
never send the newgroup message himself. The keyholder has got to be
considered to be the hierarchy manager for this purpose.
This has the advantage that there can be checkgroups issued regularly,
an impossibility in truly unmanaged hierarchies.
>And what for de.alt.*? Shouldn't it be considered as "unmanaged"?
>If I remember well, there's a possibility to create any newsgroup in
>de.alt.* (its control.ctl entry has a doit for a newgroup control
>article) and for the sake of not removing them with de.* PGP-signed
>checkgroups, they are included in de.* checkgroups.
newsgroups are listed in the checkgroups for no.*?
It seems to me that the hierarchy manager's main job is to list groups
he recognizes in checkgroups, even if there are groups newgrouped in a
second-level hierachy with informal procedures.
If there's a checkgroups, that provides satisfactory evidence of
hierarchy management. Similarly, a PGP key provides satisfactory
evidence of hierarchy management.
But if the proponent and not the hierarchy administrator issues newgroup
messages in de.alt.* that would never include a PGP key, that requires
a comment.
I would recommend against listing no.alt.*, nl-alt.*, and de.alt.* as
unmanaged.
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 10, 2023, 2:18:54 AM6/10/23
to
Hi Adam,
>>> Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
>>> hierarchies are listed:
>
>>> it-alt.*
>>> oesterreich.*
>
>> While looking at making the change in the web pages, I see we did not
>> speak about other alternative hierarchies.
>
> I had simply noticed it-alt.* and oesterreich.* in rone's unified
> control.clt and your generated list. I don't have first hand knowledge.
You're one of the most knowledgeable about Usenet hierarchies, that's
>>> Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
>>> hierarchies are listed:
>
>>> it-alt.*
>>> oesterreich.*
>
>> While looking at making the change in the web pages, I see we did not
>> speak about other alternative hierarchies.
>
> I had simply noticed it-alt.* and oesterreich.* in rone's unified
> control.clt and your generated list. I don't have first hand knowledge.
why I asked. :)
>> Should no.alt.* and nl-alt.* also considered as "unmanaged" hierarchies?
>> They both have an associated PGP key but I do not know what is the
>> policy to create a newsgroup? Is it intended after any demand of
>> someone and a signed control article is then sent, or is there a
>> validation by a sort of Board?
>
> I cannot guess what the policies are, but if the control messages
> use a PGP key, even if there is some informality about adding a group to
> checkgroups, I'd call that "managed", given that the proponent would
> never send the newgroup message himself. The keyholder has got to be
> considered to be the hierarchy manager for this purpose.
>
> This has the advantage that there can be checkgroups issued regularly,
> an impossibility in truly unmanaged hierarchies.
>
> use a PGP key, even if there is some informality about adding a group to
> checkgroups, I'd call that "managed", given that the proponent would
> never send the newgroup message himself. The keyholder has got to be
> considered to be the hierarchy manager for this purpose.
>
> This has the advantage that there can be checkgroups issued regularly,
> an impossibility in truly unmanaged hierarchies.
>
> If there's a checkgroups, that provides satisfactory evidence of
> hierarchy management. Similarly, a PGP key provides satisfactory
> evidence of hierarchy management.
Agreed.
> hierarchy management. Similarly, a PGP key provides satisfactory
> evidence of hierarchy management.
> But if the proponent and not the hierarchy administrator issues newgroup
> messages in de.alt.* that would never include a PGP key, that requires
> a comment.
For instance, the last de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co created in 2012:
https://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/de/de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co.gz
Message-ID:
<newgroup-dac.iphon...@thorongil.babylonsounds.com>
From: Simon Paquet <[snipped]>
Control: newgroup de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co
Newsgroups: de.alt.admin,de.alt.fan.ipod
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:27:03 +0200
de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co is an unmoderated newsgroup, it has been
discussed in de.alt.admin and there was no significant protest.
Bitte richten Sie die unmoderierte Newsgroup de.alt.iphone+ipad+co ein.
Ueber die Einrichtung wurde in de.alt.admin diskutiert und es gab
keinen heftigen Protest.
For your newsgroups file:
de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co Apples mobile Geraete und ihre Software.
And afterwards, Thomas takes this newsgroup into account when sending
checkgroups for the de.* hierarchy.
And he also cleans up no longer used groups in de.alt.* when appropriate.
That's the sort of things we could mention in a revived "hierarchy
notes" file that I could display along with hierarchy information.
> I would recommend against listing no.alt.*, nl-alt.*, and de.alt.* as
> unmanaged.
BTW, I've added it-alt.* and oesterreich.* in the list of unmanaged
hierarchies:
« Le chemin n'est pas difficile, c'est le difficile qui est le chemin. »
(Kierkegaard)
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 10, 2023, 9:35:05 AM6/10/23
to
Julien <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
>Hi Adam,
>>>>Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
>>>>hierarchies are listed:
>>>> it-alt.*
>>>> oesterreich.*
>>>While looking at making the change in the web pages, I see we did not
>>>speak about other alternative hierarchies.
>>I had simply noticed it-alt.* and oesterreich.* in rone's unified
>>control.clt and your generated list. I don't have first hand knowledge.
>You're one of the most knowledgeable about Usenet hierarchies, that's
>why I asked. :)
I don't read articles in groups in those hierarchies. The Italian and
>Hi Adam,
>>>>Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
>>>>hierarchies are listed:
>>>> it-alt.*
>>>> oesterreich.*
>>>While looking at making the change in the web pages, I see we did not
>>>speak about other alternative hierarchies.
>>I had simply noticed it-alt.* and oesterreich.* in rone's unified
>>control.clt and your generated list. I don't have first hand knowledge.
>You're one of the most knowledgeable about Usenet hierarchies, that's
>why I asked. :)
German words I recognize are mainly from music lessons.
noticed that he issues rmgroups for defunct de.alt.* groups.
>That's the sort of things we could mention in a revived "hierarchy
>notes" file that I could display along with hierarchy information.
or so, heh.
>>I would recommend against listing no.alt.*, nl-alt.*, and de.alt.* as
>>unmanaged.
>Noted. Thanks for your motivated reasons. I agree with you.
>BTW, I've added it-alt.* and oesterreich.* in the list of unmanaged
>hierarchies:
> http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 10, 2023, 10:48:37 AM6/10/23
to
Hi Adam,
>> And afterwards, Thomas takes this newsgroup into account when sending
>> checkgroups for the de.* hierarchy.
>> And he also cleans up no longer used groups in de.alt.* when appropriate.
>
> He won't list the group in the next checkgroups. I don't think I've
> noticed that he issues rmgroups for defunct de.alt.* groups.
There are PGP-signed rmgroup control articles for the removals too.
Example with the last one removed:
https://ftp.isc.org/usenet/control/de/de.alt.rec.flugsimulation.gz
Control: rmgroup de.alt.rec.flugsimulation
Message-ID:
<rmgroup-de.alt.rec.fl...@thangorodrim.ancalagon.de>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2022 21:29:34 -0000
But the From address (at thh.name) is not the one expected by the
control.ctl entry (at dana.de) so they were not processed by ftp.isc.org.
However, checkgroups for de.* are properly processed, and the de.alt.*
newsgroups are then removed at that time according to the ftp.isc.org rules.
>> That's the sort of things we could mention in a revived "hierarchy
>> notes" file that I could display along with hierarchy information.
>
> I appreciate your enthusiasm. That file might be edited every 20 years
> or so, heh.
:)
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Non omnia possumus omnes. » (Virgile)
>> And afterwards, Thomas takes this newsgroup into account when sending
>> checkgroups for the de.* hierarchy.
>> And he also cleans up no longer used groups in de.alt.* when appropriate.
>
> He won't list the group in the next checkgroups. I don't think I've
> noticed that he issues rmgroups for defunct de.alt.* groups.
Example with the last one removed:
https://ftp.isc.org/usenet/control/de/de.alt.rec.flugsimulation.gz
Control: rmgroup de.alt.rec.flugsimulation
Message-ID:
<rmgroup-de.alt.rec.fl...@thangorodrim.ancalagon.de>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2022 21:29:34 -0000
But the From address (at thh.name) is not the one expected by the
control.ctl entry (at dana.de) so they were not processed by ftp.isc.org.
However, checkgroups for de.* are properly processed, and the de.alt.*
newsgroups are then removed at that time according to the ftp.isc.org rules.
>> That's the sort of things we could mention in a revived "hierarchy
>> notes" file that I could display along with hierarchy information.
>
> I appreciate your enthusiasm. That file might be edited every 20 years
> or so, heh.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Non omnia possumus omnes. » (Virgile)
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 10, 2023, 12:45:29 PM6/10/23
to
Julien <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
>Hi Adam,
>>>And afterwards, Thomas takes this newsgroup into account when sending
>>>checkgroups for the de.* hierarchy.
>>>And he also cleans up no longer used groups in de.alt.* when appropriate.
>>He won't list the group in the next checkgroups. I don't think I've
>>noticed that he issues rmgroups for defunct de.alt.* groups.
>There are PGP-signed rmgroup control articles for the removals too.
>Example with the last one removed:
> https://ftp.isc.org/usenet/control/de/de.alt.rec.flugsimulation.gz
>Control: rmgroup de.alt.rec.flugsimulation
>Message-ID:
><rmgroup-de.alt.rec.fl...@thangorodrim.ancalagon.de>
>Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2022 21:29:34 -0000
>But the From address (at thh.name) is not the one expected by the
>control.ctl entry (at dana.de) so they were not processed by ftp.isc.org.
That's very interesting; thanks.
>Hi Adam,
>>>And afterwards, Thomas takes this newsgroup into account when sending
>>>checkgroups for the de.* hierarchy.
>>>And he also cleans up no longer used groups in de.alt.* when appropriate.
>>He won't list the group in the next checkgroups. I don't think I've
>>noticed that he issues rmgroups for defunct de.alt.* groups.
>There are PGP-signed rmgroup control articles for the removals too.
>Example with the last one removed:
> https://ftp.isc.org/usenet/control/de/de.alt.rec.flugsimulation.gz
>Control: rmgroup de.alt.rec.flugsimulation
>Message-ID:
><rmgroup-de.alt.rec.fl...@thangorodrim.ancalagon.de>
>Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2022 21:29:34 -0000
>But the From address (at thh.name) is not the one expected by the
>control.ctl entry (at dana.de) so they were not processed by ftp.isc.org.
>However, checkgroups for de.* are properly processed, and the de.alt.*
>newsgroups are then removed at that time according to the ftp.isc.org rules.
Thomas Hochstein
Jun 12, 2023, 5:30:03 PM6/12/23
to
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> He won't list the group in the next checkgroups. I don't think I've
> noticed that he issues rmgroups for defunct de.alt.* groups.
Newsgroups in de.alt.* are removed after a discussion period of at least
> He won't list the group in the next checkgroups. I don't think I've
> noticed that he issues rmgroups for defunct de.alt.* groups.
7-14 days when there is no "too strong" protest. They are removed by
rmgroup messages sent and signed by the proponent. As most people won't
execute control messages not signed by a hierarchy key, they are really
removed when they are subsequently dropped from the (joined) checkgroups
for de.* (including de.alt.*) sent by the hierarchy maintainers.
All other newsgroups in de.* (excluding de.alt.*) are removed by a formal
process of (at least) a RfD, submitted to a moderated newsgroup and posted
by the hierarchy maintainers, followed by a discussion period of (at
least) 14 days, followed by a CfV with a voting period of (at least) for
weeks, needing a majority and a quorum, followed by a result, all
according to a set of rules, posted to a moderated group and arbitrated by
hierarchy maintainers, who will sent and sign the control messages after a
objection period has passed.
That holds true even if the proponent for the removal of a de.alt.* group
_is_ the member of the hierarchy maintainer team tasked with sending the
checkgroups. :-)
-thh
Thomas Hochstein
Jun 12, 2023, 5:45:02 PM6/12/23
to
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> But if the proponent and not the hierarchy administrator issues newgroup
> messages in de.alt.* that would never include a PGP key, that requires
> a comment.
de.alt.* had been modelled after alt.*, as de.* had been modelled after
> But if the proponent and not the hierarchy administrator issues newgroup
> messages in de.alt.* that would never include a PGP key, that requires
> a comment.
the Big8, so control messages for de.alt.* are traditionally sent by
proponents (signed with their keys) or by someone acting for the
proponent. Those groups are added to or removed from the checkgroups for
de.* by the hierarchy maintainer team; while - theoretically - just a
technical necessity, that makes the hierarchy maintainers the final
arbiter of disputes whether due process was followed before the control
message was send.
Historically, the rights and sinecures of de.alt.* have been jealously
defended against perceived infringements by hierarchy maintainers. :-)
Today, that's mainly moot as there are not many users left (and even less
interested in hierarchy administration or technically inclined or
qualified to sent control message).
Anyway, all groups in the checkgroups are created (and all missing groups
have been removed) by due process; it's just a very different process for
de.alt.*
-thh
Thomas Hochstein
Jun 12, 2023, 5:45:02 PM6/12/23
to
Julien ÉLIE wrote:
> And what for de.alt.*? Shouldn't it be considered as "unmanaged"?
It's not really unmanaged, as de.* (including de.alt.*) is a managed
> And what for de.alt.*? Shouldn't it be considered as "unmanaged"?
hierarchy, so de.alt.* is included in checkgroups messages for de.*.
Historically, that was the only option, and after a spectacularly
unsuccessful attempt with a scoped checkgroups we never tried again.
Today, it's mostly moot, due to declining Usenet usage and even more
declining interest and participation in "hierarchy management" of any
kind.
> If I remember well, there's a possibility to create any newsgroup in
> de.alt.* (its control.ctl entry has a doit for a newgroup control
> article) and for the sake of not removing them with de.* PGP-signed
> checkgroups, they are included in de.* checkgroups.
checkgroups for de.*, i.e. new groups are not added automatically, but by
hand by someone reading de.alt.admin, the "administrative" group for
de.alt.*
Excluding de.alt.*, de.* is using a formalised RfD/CfV process modelled
after the Big 8 in the 90s while de.alt.* has a kind of consensus-based
process: when a proposal is posted and there is no "strong" protest in the
next week (or two weeks), the group may be created by a newgroup message
sent and signed by the proponent (or someone on his or her behalf, if the
proponent lacks the expertise to send those messages). Theoretically,
every news server operator can then decide for him- or herself whether
(s)he wants to add that group or not, which ultimately presupposes that
(s)he's either reading de.alt.admin or just listening to their users;
honoring every newgroup message is not a good idea (as in alt.*). In
practice, however, server operators usually simply follow the checkgroups
for de.* - be it by setting up de.alt.* groups only after the checkgroups
has been received or by removing them again if not included in the
checkgroups. So in fact the person sending out the checkgroups for .de*
decides which groups in de.alt.* are "legitimate", i.e. were rightly set
up due to a lack of "too strong" protest.
So we have, on one hand, de.* (excluding de.alt.*) with the moderator (or
moderation) of de.admin.news.announce as hierarchy maintainer (or a team
of hierarchy maintainers, since 1997) and strict rules, a formal process
of RfDs, discussion periods, CfV and votes, where all control messages are
sent by the hierarchy maintainer team and signed with their key - and, on
the other hand, de.alt.*, with a fairness based approach, where control
messages (new/rmgroups) are sent and signed by the proponent.
Theoretically, both systems co-exist; in fact, the hierarchy maintainer
team has the last say even on groups in de.alt.* due to their inclusion in
the checkgroups for the whole hierarchy. While mostly theoretical, there
were instances of "control message wars" when not all participants agreed
wether there was "strong protest" or not.
Today, that's mostly just of historical interest, as most people able to
send control messages or conduct votes (or even interested in discussing
changes in the list of newsgroups) that are still active _are_ members of
the hierarchy maintainer team. *shrug*
tl;dr: Technically and factually, de.* is a managed hierarchy; newgroup
(and rmgroup) messages for de.alt.* are vetted before inclusion in the
checkgroups to check that "due process" was followed.
0 new messages