Google Acquires Deja Usenet Archives

317 views
Skip to first unread message

Jonathan Grobe

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 2:15:03 PM2/12/01
to
[Any comment on this press release?]

Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
Deja.com

Award-Winning Search Engine Launches Beta Version of Usenet Newsgroup
Search

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - February 12, 2001 - Google Inc. today
announced that is has acquired Deja.com's Usenet Discussion Service.
This acquisition provides Google with Deja's entire Usenet archive
(dating back to 1995), software, domain names including deja.com and
dejanews.com, company trademarks, and other intellectual property.
Financial terms of this transaction were not released.

Available now at http://groups.google.com, this powerful new Usenet
search feature enables Google users to access the wealth of
information contained in more than six months of Usenet newsgroup
postings and message threads. Once the full Deja Usenet archive is
added, users will be able to search and browse more than 500 million
archived messages with the speed and efficiency of a Google search. In
addition to expanding the amount of searchable data, Google will soon
provide improved browsing capabilities and newsgroup posting.

"We welcome Deja's loyal users into the growing community of Google
users worldwide," said Larry Page, Google CEO and co-founder. "With
more than 500 million individual messages and growing fast, Usenet and
its thriving community is one of the most active and valuable
information sources on the Internet."

"The acquisition of Deja's significant assets will enable Google to
offer an important new source of information to both Deja and Google
users," said Omid Kordestani, Google's vice president of business
development and sales. "We will continue to build and acquire the
necessary technologies to provide the best search experience to
millions of Google users worldwide."

The award-winning Google search engine serves 70 million searches per
day, with approximately half of these searches performed on the
company's homepage at http://www.google.com. Google offers a wide
variety of custom search service products and currently licenses its
search technology to more than 120 companies in 30 countries.

About Google Inc.
With the largest index of websites available on the World Wide Web and
the industry's most advanced search technology, Google Inc. delivers
the fastest and easiest way to find relevant information on the
Internet. Google's technological innovations have earned the company
numerous industry awards and citations, including two Webby Awards;
WIRED magazine's Reader Raves Award; Best Internet Innovation and
Technical Excellence Award from PC Magazine; Best Search Engine on the
Internet from Yahoo! Internet Life; Top Ten Best Cybertech from TIME
magazine; and Editor's Pick from CNET. A growing number of companies
worldwide, including Yahoo!, AOL/Netscape, and Cisco Systems, rely on
Google to power search on their websites. A privately held company
based in Mountain View, Calif., Google's investors include Kleiner
Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. More information about
Google can be found on the Google site at http://www.google.com.

###

Google is a trademark of Google Inc. All other company and product
names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they
are associated.

Google Contacts:
David Krane
650-930-3596
dkr...@google.com Cindy McCaffrey
(650) 930-3524
ci...@google.com

--
Jonathan Grobe

Peter B. Steiger

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 3:02:14 PM2/12/01
to
On 12 Feb 2001 19:15:03 GMT, Jonathan Grobe sez:
>[Any comment on this press release?]
>
>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
>Deja.com

So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing
(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the
date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).

I wish they'd leave the Deja search engine in place until the
Google engine is fully debugged. Bah!


Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
----
If you reply by email, send it to pbs at com dot
canada (or vice-versa). All advertisements will be
returned to your postmaster, eh!

Jay Denebeim

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 3:12:16 PM2/12/01
to
In article <3a8840cd....@news.cheyne1.wy.home.com>,

Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>On 12 Feb 2001 19:15:03 GMT, Jonathan Grobe sez:
>>[Any comment on this press release?]
>>
>>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
>>Deja.com
>
>So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing
>(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the
>date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).

It looks like they've just fed the deja database into google's
software, try it like a web search. Just enter 'Steiger'.

Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search
engine.

IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought
them.

Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *

Bert Hyman

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 3:41:42 PM2/12/01
to
see...@for.email.address wrote in
<3a8840cd....@news.cheyne1.wy.home.com>:

>On 12 Feb 2001 19:15:03 GMT, Jonathan Grobe sez:
>>[Any comment on this press release?]
>>
>>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets
>>from Deja.com
>
>So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing
>(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the
>date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).

Try the "Advanced Search" page
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search, where you'll find fields
for Newsgroup and Author.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com

Ron Natalie

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 4:20:56 PM2/12/01
to

Jay Denebeim wrote:

> Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search
> engine.
>
> IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought
> them.

I'm not. What a bunch of megloamaical bastards. They're not even
honoring X-No-Archive. You get 157,000 hits if you search for on
x-no-archive.

Aahz Maruch

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 4:33:43 PM2/12/01
to
In article <slrn98gdhm.s...@worf.netins.net>, Jonathan Grobe <> wrote:
>
>[Any comment on this press release?]

It's about the best possible news, overall. I expect there'll be some
bobbles and growing pains, but I can't imagine any company that
could/would do a better job and all too many that would do far, far
worse.
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2001 by aa...@pobox.com)

Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

'Gender' isn't a definition, it's a heuristic. --Aahz

Rob Kelk

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 4:37:50 PM2/12/01
to

Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
honour an experimental header?

Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my* view
- not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a public
forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the poster in
the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a header that
isn't defined in the RFCs.

--
Rob Kelk Personal address: rob...@ottawa.com
Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.

Ron Natalie

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 4:47:49 PM2/12/01
to

Rob Kelk wrote:

>
> Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
> honour an experimental header?

Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means
to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the archiving
of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know what the intent
of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the DMCA.

>
> Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my* view
> - not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a public
> forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the poster in
> the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a header that
> isn't defined in the RFCs.

Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.

Rob Kelk

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 4:57:29 PM2/12/01
to
Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> Rob Kelk wrote:
>
> >
> > Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
> > honour an experimental header?
>
> Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means
> to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the archiving
> of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know what the intent
> of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the DMCA.

Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I
haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.

And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?


<snip>

Ron Natalie

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 5:18:23 PM2/12/01
to

Rob Kelk wrote:

> Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I
> haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.

Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's a change to our copyright law to
make things more amenable to the database providers (of which GOOGLE is
one of the beneficiaries). Since I'm in the US, and GOOGLE is in the
US (California), it's directly applicable to their infringement of my
copyrgihts.

>
> And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?
>

It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.

Since this is a specifically actionalble (i.e., can sue for $$$) part of
the act, I wonder how long it's going to take someone to take a pot shot
at them.

Jan Schaumann

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 5:22:36 PM2/12/01
to

And all these hits have what in common? The words "x-no-archive" in the
/Subject/ or the /Body/ of the message.

Also:

+--from http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html --
|
| 10.I do not want you to archive my article(s)! How can I remove articles
| that I've posted from Google's archive?
|
| We are sympathetic to those who would like for their
| previous Usenet postings to no longer show up on Google
| Groups. Google supports the 'X-No-archive: yes' header,
| and we will not archive any newly posted articles that
| contain this text in the header. A request to remove
| articles that do not have this header is known in the
| industry as a "nuke" request; Google is not in a
| position to automatically remove such posts in this beta
| version.
|
| It is Google's policy to respond to notices of alleged
| infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium
| Copyright Act in an appropriate manner under such Act
| and other applicable intellectual property laws,
| including the removal or disabling of access to material
| claimed to be the subject of infringing activity. For
| more information, see our Terms of Service.
|
| 11.Why are old posts that I nuked showing up when I search for
| them on Google?
|
| Google's current usenet search includes postings from
| August 2000 onward that have been archived by Google. As
| soon as possible, Google will use the information
| contained in the Deja archive to begin honoring nuke
| requests made by Deja users.
|
+-------------------------------------------------------

AND:
UCMA is *US* law - the internet != US.

-Jan

--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>

I want this V-Chip out of me! It has stunted my vocabulary.

I R A Darth Aggie

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 5:23:17 PM2/12/01
to
On 12 Feb 2001 19:15:03 GMT,
Jonathan Grobe <grobe...@netins.net>, in
<slrn98gdhm.s...@worf.netins.net> wrote:
+ [Any comment on this press release?]
+
+ Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
+ Deja.com

Yeah, Deja might become useful again...

James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

I R A Darth Aggie

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 5:28:25 PM2/12/01
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:57:29 -0500,
Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com>, in
<3A885C49...@ottawa.com> wrote:
+ Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote:

+ > Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means
+ > to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the archiving
+ > of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know what the intent
+ > of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the DMCA.

+ Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I
+ haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.

Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a mass-media end-round on 20+ years
of Fair Use bought and paid for by RIAA and MPAA (recording and motion
picture associations, respectively). With any luck, it should be ruled
unconstitutional by the end of the year...

+ And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?

One would think so, but when as that stopped a lawyer?

Ron Natalie

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 5:31:12 PM2/12/01
to
J
> AND:
> UCMA is *US* law - the internet != US.

Yes, but Google is a US corporation, and the illegal activity is taking
place in the US, so it is subject to the law.

Ron Natalie

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 5:33:30 PM2/12/01
to

"J.J. Pearce" wrote:
>
>
> I see a /lot/ of people (newbies, mostly) putting 'X-No-archive' in
> the body of their posts, rather than making it a real header. TTBOMK,
> this just doesn't work and could account for many of the results in
> Ron's search...
>
Worked fine for DEJA until GOOGLE got ahold of them. DEJA recognized
that many posters were using lame versions of the news composers (like
NETSCAPE) that wouldn't insert the header line.

Taki Kogoma

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 5:43:46 PM2/12/01
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:33:30 -0500, did Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net>,
to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet decree...

IIRC, if "X-No-Archive: yes" was the *first* line in the article body,
deja would honor it.

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk

Jan Schaumann

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 5:51:30 PM2/12/01
to

doesn't matter. If it's not a header it shouldn't be treated like one. That's
just like Outlook Express pretending that
begin something.txt
is an attachment
end
when it's not.

If the words "x-no-archive" appear in the body or the subject, a search on
these words should certainly reveal them and it would be rude to simply assume
that it's a header.

-Jan

--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>

Hermes: "The poor demented honky."

Rob Kelk

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 6:30:29 PM2/12/01
to

Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from now. Thanks.

Russ Allbery

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 6:36:04 PM2/12/01
to
In news.groups, Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> writes:

> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it
> meant and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to
> violate it.

You're attributing to malice what may well be adequately explained by
immediately post-acquisition chaos. Getting this detail right before they
said anything would have been nice, but you don't know what sorts of time
constraints they may have been under to do *something* and I find it
unlikely that making the whole archive disappear until they sorted out
that detail would have been viable from the marketing standpoint.
Assuming that they were even aware of it as an issue; who knows what
information they got from Deja.

I'd recommend not getting too upset about anything until after a month or
so to let things settle down.

--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Sylvan Butler

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 6:07:09 PM2/12/01
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:18:23 -0500, Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's a change to our copyright law to
>make things more amenable to the database providers (of which GOOGLE is
>one of the beneficiaries). Since I'm in the US, and GOOGLE is in the
>US (California), it's directly applicable to their infringement of my
>copyrgihts.

Hmm. Where is your post with x-no-archive in the headers archived by
google since they agreed to honor that header?

Did you read the hits turned up by your search on why x-no-archive
doesn't work?

sdb
--
| Sylvan Butler | Not speaking for Hewlett-Packard | sbutler-boi.hp.com |
| Watch out for my e-mail address. Thank UCE. #### change ^ to @ #### |
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
"Don't Tread On Me!"

Damian

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 7:41:29 PM2/12/01
to
Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote in <3A885A05...@spamcop.net>:

>to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the
>archiving of the message.

Utter bull. When you post to Usenet you implicitly agree that you are
speaking in a public forum. If you didn't give anyone permission to
archive your message it wouldn't appear on Usenet _period_. Are you
going to give each and every server on Usenet your message is distributed
to permission individually? Did you give Skycache permission? Did you
give Usenetserver permission? Of course not. What are they doing that's
different from Deja? Holding on to it longer? Hell, Giganews has 3
months of text retention. What's the line between long retention and an
archive? Who decides that? You? Each poster? Fine, Deja isn't an
archive, it's a news server with really long retention. End of
discussion.

>Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
>law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.

Are you a lawyer? I didn't think so.

--
-Damian

E-Mail address is valid

J.B. Nicholson-Owens

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 9:15:41 PM2/12/01
to
Peter B. Steiger wrote:
> I wish they'd leave the Deja search engine in place until the
> Google engine is fully debugged. Bah!

I concur. Deja's search engine was better, the display of matching articles
was better and the speed was always fine (as far as I've seen)--not that
Google is a slouch on speed, but if it's not broken... I also liked how one
could retreive the text version of an article (just the article, no markup).
Finally, I liked how one could retreive an article given its message-ID. I
wish they had kept the old interface and search engine around until they
were ready to go with their new stuff. I hope their new database allows
these features too.

JayDee

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 9:22:03 PM2/12/01
to
On 12 Feb 2001 19:15:03 GMT, grobe...@netins.net (Jonathan
Grobe) wrote:

>[Any comment on this press release?]

just don't dump the Deja Classic option...

JayDee

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 9:22:05 PM2/12/01
to
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:47:49 -0500, Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net>
wrote:


>Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
>law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.

talk to the investors re. these details

meanwhile, the world is watching...

I like that

Vincent Lefevre

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 10:05:47 PM2/12/01
to
In article <3A885A05...@spamcop.net>,
Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
> law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.

I disagree. BTW, I hope you won't sue me because I quoted a part of
your article. :)

--
Vincent Lefèvre <vin...@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> - 100%
validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des
Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc.
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA

Christopher Jahn

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 11:14:55 PM2/12/01
to

There is no legal requirement for anyone to honor "x-no-
archive"; it was developed by DejaNews as a courtesy, and google
is under no obligation to honor it, although I expect that as
they are flooded by complaints, they will.

I've never understood the "x-no-archive" mentality; you make
public comments, they are part of the public record. You don't
want to be in the public record, then don't speak in public.

Having said that, I did force RemarQ to filter out my posts when
they started ad-linking. But I made THEM figure it out; I was
specifically denying them the right to link my words to product
endorsements; I was not interested in getting "off-record".

Of course, they didn't do it until I billed them; then they
dropped me right off their servers.

--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler

All suspects are innocent until proven Discordian in a Court of
Chaos.

To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom

Adam Bailey

unread,
Feb 12, 2001, 11:50:04 PM2/12/01
to
Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote:

That doesn't necessarily mean anything. Do the same search with
Deja.com (if possible), and you'll see just how many people mis-type
it or put it in the wrong place.

I really should trim the Newsgroups header, but I'm too lazy.

--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
ad...@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP
ada...@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/

Stepper

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 1:33:00 AM2/13/01
to

Yeah its currently CRUDDY, looking and working. I think google
got more than they bargained for. Dejanews was not just the database
but the nice way it was set up. I hope Google makes it about as good
again. I just jumped on their today to do a search and found it out = (

Kjetil Torgrim Homme

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 2:11:55 AM2/13/01
to
[ds...@krom.omhan1.ne.home.com]

> Yeah its currently CRUDDY, looking and working. I think google got
> more than they bargained for. Dejanews was not just the database
> but the nice way it was set up. I hope Google makes it about as
> good again. I just jumped on their today to do a search and found
> it out = (

CRUDDY?! It's already a _great_ improvement over the old Deja user
interface, even with Jeremy Nixon's frontend. It's much more
efficient to use. The short context is very helpful. The
presentation of threads is a bit lacking, though, there ought to be a
table of contents presented as a tree at the top.

(I don't care about the newsreader service, just the searching.)


Kjetil T.

Kai Henningsen

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 1:47:00 AM2/13/01
to
j...@forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson-Owens) wrote on 13.02.01 in <slrn98h6...@next.forestfield.org>:

> I concur. Deja's search engine was better,

Except ithad this nasty habit of being broken. It didn't find everything
that matched the query, and it found lots of stuff that didn't match the
query. I've yet to see Google do that - the worst is when a Web page has
changed in the mean time (but Google still shows the old version, of
course), something that's not likely to happen with Usenet!


Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)

Kai Henningsen

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 1:43:00 AM2/13/01
to
ds...@krom.omhan1.ne.home.com (Stepper) wrote on 13.02.01 in <slrn98hl8t...@krom.omhan1.ne.home.com>:

> Yeah its currently CRUDDY, looking and working. I think google
> got more than they bargained for. Dejanews was not just the database
> but the nice way it was set up. I hope Google makes it about as good
> again. I just jumped on their today to do a search and found it out = (

Deja? Nice way it was set up?

Oh boy. Pull the other one, it's got bells on!

Zonky

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 4:12:13 AM2/13/01
to
Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote in <3A885A05...@spamcop.net>:

>
>

I hardly see how. You're posting to Usenet, and every server will have a
different article hold time. From an hour to well, infinite. I don't see
Google cannot hold their articles for a time they choose?

--
Please remove my_pants when replying.

Martijn van Buul

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 5:35:16 AM2/13/01
to
It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:

[ X-No-Archive ]

> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
> and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.

Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
Deja archived them after all..

--
Martijn van Buul - Pi...@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
Geek code: G-- - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
Kees J. Bot: The sum of CPU power and user brain power is a constant.

Johan M. Olofsson

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 5:47:26 AM2/13/01
to
On 12 feb 2001, Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote in news.groups:

Rob Kelk wrote:
>> Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
>> honour an experimental header?

>>

>> Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my*
>> view - not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a
>> public forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the
>> poster in the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a
>> header that isn't defined in the RFCs.

> Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
> law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.

It is not _that_ simple.

Usenet covers several countries, with different laws, and different degree
of intended enforcement of their laws in this respect.

Hence it's (in my opinion) more of a question for Usenet as such than for
the judicial authorities of some or another country.

Just to give an EU-example, follow the two links from
http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/archive/index.html

/Johan Olofsson

piranha

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 6:46:46 AM2/13/01
to
aa...@panix.com (Aahz Maruch) writes:

> In article <slrn98gdhm.s...@worf.netins.net>, Jonathan Grobe <> wrote:
> >
> >[Any comment on this press release?]
>
> It's about the best possible news, overall.

umm. IMO the best possible news would have been the demise of the
deja archive. byebye. usenet back to being ephemeral, not half-
assedly archived, with posts missing left and right (as in, if
there is a permanent archive, then a full archive; screw the badly
named x-no-archive header; do that right or don't do it).

that said, since i don't get my wish:

> I expect there'll be some bobbles and growing pains,

leaving the deja engine in place until they've migrated would've
been better to begin with.

> but I can't imagine any company that
> could/would do a better job and all too many that would do far, far
> worse.

here i agree.
--
-piranha

Peter da Silva

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 6:56:11 AM2/13/01
to
In article <slrn98i3f4.kgj.pino+...@mud.stack.nl>,

Martijn van Buul <pino+news_sof...@dohd.org> wrote:
>It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
>> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
>> and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.

>Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
>of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
>Deja archived them after all..

That's what was bothering me. Are y'all sure that Deja's DB is actually in use
yet?

It's X-No-Archive, after all, not X-No-Display.

And apparently they didn't really nuke articles when asked, either, they
just hid them.

--
Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC. WWFD?

"Be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept"
-- Matthew 10:16 (l.trans)

Paul Bolchover

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 7:06:03 AM2/13/01
to
In article <96b7cr$ue6$1...@citadel.in.taronga.com>,

Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn98i3f4.kgj.pino+...@mud.stack.nl>,
>Martijn van Buul <pino+news_sof...@dohd.org> wrote:
>>It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
>>> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
>>> and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
>
>>Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
>>of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
>>Deja archived them after all..
>
>That's what was bothering me. Are y'all sure that Deja's DB is actually in use
>yet?
>
>It's X-No-Archive, after all, not X-No-Display.
>
>And apparently they didn't really nuke articles when asked, either, they
>just hid them.

Someone mentioned elsewhere in this thread that it's likely that the current
interface is to Google's own archive of usenet posts, and they haven't
got round to incorporating the Deja archive yet - when they do so, they'll
obviously get rid of the nuked articles...

Paul Bolchover

Peter da Silva

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 7:01:41 AM2/13/01
to
In article <Xns9046EBB...@24.129.0.130>,

Christopher Jahn <xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Having said that, I did force RemarQ to filter out my posts when
>they started ad-linking. But I made THEM figure it out; I was
>specifically denying them the right to link my words to product
>endorsements; I was not interested in getting "off-record".
>
>Of course, they didn't do it until I billed them; then they
>dropped me right off their servers.

Did you do the same thing to Altavista and everyone else who put
ads on search results?

Dave Korn

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 7:10:52 AM2/13/01
to
Russ Allbery wrote in message ...

>In news.groups, Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it
>> meant and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to
>> violate it.
>
>You're attributing to malice what may well be adequately explained by
>immediately post-acquisition chaos.

>Assuming that they were even aware of it as an issue; who knows what


>information they got from Deja.

Interesting point. If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them out
from the search interface, that probably puts them in the clear in terms of
copyright, since they aren't republishing them. But if they claim to truly
respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have been entered into their database in
the first place.

>I'd recommend not getting too upset about anything until after a month or
>so to let things settle down.

Wise words, as ever. After all, it's not Google's fault that Deja filled
up the database with stuff that shouldn't have been there, and presumably
they could get it all removed and rebuild the indexes, but it's bound to
take some time.

DaveK
--
They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at
Columbus. But remember, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.


Ron Natalie

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 9:30:33 AM2/13/01
to

Martijn van Buul wrote:
>
> It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
>
> [ X-No-Archive ]
>
> > It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
> > and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
>
> Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
> of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
> Deja archived them after all..
>

No, the stuff at GOOGLE now is not the contents of the DEJA archives, but
something they seem to have collected on thier own.

Jay Denebeim

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 9:47:08 AM2/13/01
to
In article <vJ9i6.159$yi4.1...@newsr1.u-net.net>,
Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> wrote:

>But if they claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have
>been entered into their database in the first place.

Given that xna was made up by deja in the first place I can't see how
you can expect google to do more than deja did. Deja always stored
everything and only returned the ones not xnaed.

Russ Allbery

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 9:50:45 AM2/13/01
to
In news.groups, Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> writes:

> Interesting point. If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them
> out from the search interface, that probably puts them in the clear in
> terms of copyright, since they aren't republishing them. But if they
> claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have been entered into
> their database in the first place.

However, Deja always did the former and not the latter, or at least that's
what I've heard from multiple sources for quite some time.

Damian

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 12:14:58 PM2/13/01
to
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote in
<96b7n5$uja$1...@citadel.in.taronga.com>:

>Did you do the same thing to Altavista and everyone else who put
>ads on search results?

Altavista presents the ads separately, as banners. Nothing wrong with
that. What was wrong about what Deja did was link words you had written
in your post to external sites, making it seem as though you had included
those links in your post. It was deceptive and unethical. I have no
problem with Deja's archive, but I have problems with them altering
posts.

Charles Lindsey

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 10:52:51 AM2/13/01
to

>Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
>honour an experimental header?

The upcoming revision of RFC 1036 will make such a header official (But it
will be "Archive: no" rather than X-No-Archive: yes).

>Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my* view
>- not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a public
>forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the poster in
>the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a header that
>isn't defined in the RFCs.

There can be no legal compulsion to observe the header. Deja only honoured
it because people lent on them to do so. That established the precedent,
and I think most players now claim to honour it.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 436 6131 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

Rich Lafferty

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 12:52:15 PM2/13/01
to
In news.groups,

piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote:
>
> leaving the deja engine in place until they've migrated would've
> been better to begin with.

I've seen this suggestion in a lot of places. Google didn't buy
*hardware* from Deja, though, and certainly didn't buy administrative
staff; I can't imagine any way in which Unix-based Google could have
run Deja's old NT-based front end without taking a considerable loss,
not to mention significant training and migration problems.

-Rich

--
Rich Lafferty ----------------------------------------
Nocturnal Aviation Division, IITS Computing Services
Concordia University, Montreal, QC
ri...@bofh.concordia.ca -------------------------------

Dave Korn

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 1:01:25 PM2/13/01
to
Jay Denebeim wrote in message <96bhdc$4mg$1...@dent.deepthot.org>...

>In article <vJ9i6.159$yi4.1...@newsr1.u-net.net>,
>Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> wrote:
>
>>But if they claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have
>>been entered into their database in the first place.
>
>Given that xna was made up by deja in the first place I can't see how
>you can expect google to do more than deja did.

Hi Jay,

Not quite sure how you read that into my words, particularly the bit where
I said

>>After all, it's not Google's fault that Deja filled
>>up the database with stuff that shouldn't have been there

which should have made it clear it was Deja's behaviour I was objecting to,
and then you say

> Deja always stored
>everything and only returned the ones not xnaed.

which was kind of the point that I was making, in the sentence

>>If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them out
>>from the search interface

So really the only comment I can add at this point is that I should have
perhaps said

"But if they claim to truly respect XNA, and to respect the spirit of XNA
rather than merely the letter of the law..."

Is that clearer? That I feel that they should have actually not archived
XNA posts, and that XNA is a misnomer if what it meant (to the people who
invented it) was actually "Do archive but don't republish".

Dave Korn

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 1:14:49 PM2/13/01
to
Rich Lafferty wrote in message ...
[snip]

> Deja's old NT-based front end
[snip]

So that's why it was so slow and clunky.

Bert Hyman

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 1:22:30 PM2/13/01
to
r...@spamcop.net wrote in <3A8853B8...@spamcop.net>:

>
>I'm not. What a bunch of megloamaical bastards. They're not even
>honoring X-No-Archive. ...

They say that they do.

From http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html:

We are sympathetic to those who would like for their previous
Usenet postings to no longer show up on Google Groups. Google
supports the 'X-No-archive: yes' header, and we will not
archive any newly posted articles that contain this text in
the header.

I don't know what they mean by "newly posted articles" though.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com

Russ Allbery

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 1:57:08 PM2/13/01
to
In news.groups, Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> writes:

> They say that they do.

> From http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html:

> We are sympathetic to those who would like for their previous
> Usenet postings to no longer show up on Google Groups. Google
> supports the 'X-No-archive: yes' header, and we will not
> archive any newly posted articles that contain this text in
> the header.

> I don't know what they mean by "newly posted articles" though.

My guess: It means that they're honoring it for all newly received
messages, but they haven't had a chance to clean their old database yet.

John David Galt

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 2:58:46 PM2/13/01
to
Ron Natalie wrote:
> Jay Denebeim wrote:

>> Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search
>> engine.
>>

>> IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought
>> them.


>
> I'm not. What a bunch of megloamaical bastards. They're not even

> honoring X-No-Archive. You get 157,000 hits if you search for on
> x-no-archive.

How many of those are posts by ignorant posters who put
"X-No-Archive: yes" in the message body rather than the headers?
That shouldn't work.

tayllor

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 3:25:47 PM2/13/01
to
Thank you for posting this press release that dejanews is no longer
available to search past messages as it once was.

I am being asked by a few fellow goofs on a local newsgroup to produce any
posts from this one user on winnipeg.general from 1994 to 1999
approximately and can not.

I simply said that yes, this professor did swear in his posts mutliple times
(hundreds) of times in his thousands of posts over the few years of posting
on "wpg.general" and I can't seem to get messages past the year 2000 on what
was dejanews.com

All I want to do is post a handful of posts back onto winnipeg.general to
show were he used many of the words George Carline said you can't say on the
radio :)

I don't have any problem with him saying these things now, but at the time 6
years ago, i found it unusual and not acceptable to have these words come
out of a professor and from a free account aimed at me and others.

Thanks if you can help me dig up old posts from 1994- 1999 on Norm.


****

Jonathan Grobe wrote in message ...


>[Any comment on this press release?]
>

>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
>Deja.com
>

> Award-Winning Search Engine Launches Beta Version of Usenet Newsgroup
> Search
>
> MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - February 12, 2001 - Google Inc. today
> announced that is has acquired Deja.com's Usenet Discussion Service.
> This acquisition provides Google with Deja's entire Usenet archive
> (dating back to 1995), software, domain names including deja.com and
> dejanews.com, company trademarks, and other intellectual property.
> Financial terms of this transaction were not released.
>
> Available now at http://groups.google.com, this powerful new Usenet
> search feature enables Google users to access the wealth of
> information contained in more than six months of Usenet newsgroup
> postings and message threads. Once the full Deja Usenet archive is
> added, users will be able to search and browse more than 500 million
> archived messages with the speed and efficiency of a Google search. In
> addition to expanding the amount of searchable data, Google will soon
> provide improved browsing capabilities and newsgroup posting.
>
> "We welcome Deja's loyal users into the growing community of Google
> users worldwide," said Larry Page, Google CEO and co-founder. "With
> more than 500 million individual messages and growing fast, Usenet and
> its thriving community is one of the most active and valuable
> information sources on the Internet."
>
> "The acquisition of Deja's significant assets will enable Google to
> offer an important new source of information to both Deja and Google
> users," said Omid Kordestani, Google's vice president of business
> development and sales. "We will continue to build and acquire the
> necessary technologies to provide the best search experience to
> millions of Google users worldwide."
>
> The award-winning Google search engine serves 70 million searches per
> day, with approximately half of these searches performed on the
> company's homepage at http://www.google.com. Google offers a wide
> variety of custom search service products and currently licenses its
> search technology to more than 120 companies in 30 countries.
>
> About Google Inc.
> With the largest index of websites available on the World Wide Web and
> the industry's most advanced search technology, Google Inc. delivers
> the fastest and easiest way to find relevant information on the
> Internet. Google's technological innovations have earned the company
> numerous industry awards and citations, including two Webby Awards;
> WIRED magazine's Reader Raves Award; Best Internet Innovation and
> Technical Excellence Award from PC Magazine; Best Search Engine on the
> Internet from Yahoo! Internet Life; Top Ten Best Cybertech from TIME
> magazine; and Editor's Pick from CNET. A growing number of companies
> worldwide, including Yahoo!, AOL/Netscape, and Cisco Systems, rely on
> Google to power search on their websites. A privately held company
> based in Mountain View, Calif., Google's investors include Kleiner
> Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. More information about
> Google can be found on the Google site at http://www.google.com.
>
> ###
>
> Google is a trademark of Google Inc. All other company and product
> names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they
> are associated.
>
> Google Contacts:
> David Krane
> 650-930-3596
> dkr...@google.com Cindy McCaffrey
> (650) 930-3524
> ci...@google.com
>
>--
>Jonathan Grobe
>


Jon Skeet

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 4:08:01 PM2/13/01
to
John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:

> How many of those are posts by ignorant posters who put
> "X-No-Archive: yes" in the message body rather than the headers?
> That shouldn't work.

I believe Deja (who introduced it in the first place, according to
another post I read) decided to notice it as the first line of the post,
to enable those whose newsreaders don't allow header changing/adding to
still avoid being archived (in theory :)

--
Jon Skeet - sk...@pobox.com
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet

Rob Mitchell

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 5:58:04 PM2/13/01
to
In article <4a4bf92747v...@vinc17.org>, Vincent Lefevre
<vincen...@vinc17.org> wrote:

> In article <3A885A05...@spamcop.net>,


> Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
> > law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
>

> I disagree. BTW, I hope you won't sue me because I quoted a part of
> your article. :)

And caused it to be re-archived as well. ;-)

Rob

--
Andrew Brunner: "What happened to Boston???"
Alan Krueger: "Last I heard, it's where it's
always been." - 6-21-00.

Rob Mitchell

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 7:08:02 PM2/13/01
to
In article <yl66iew...@windlord.stanford.edu>, Russ Allbery
<r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

> In news.groups, Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> writes:
>
> > Interesting point. If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them
> > out from the search interface, that probably puts them in the clear in
> > terms of copyright, since they aren't republishing them. But if they
> > claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have been entered into
> > their database in the first place.
>
> However, Deja always did the former and not the latter, or at least that's
> what I've heard from multiple sources for quite some time.

Hmmm, I've never seen the slightest solid documentation that xna posts
were ever kept on any of Deja's servers at any time.

Biil Palmer

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 7:25:07 PM2/13/01
to
Rob Mitchell wrote:

> > > Interesting point. If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them
> > > out from the search interface, that probably puts them in the clear in
> > > terms of copyright, since they aren't republishing them. But if they
> > > claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have been entered into
> > > their database in the first place.
> >
> > However, Deja always did the former and not the latter, or at least that's
> > what I've heard from multiple sources for quite some time.
>
> Hmmm, I've never seen the slightest solid documentation that xna posts
> were ever kept on any of Deja's servers at any time.

You must not have been a paying customer. The free archives are one thing,
the complete archives require an account. Usenet savvy employment agencies
typically sign up for the deluxe accounts.

Matthew L. Bruce

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 7:49:15 PM2/13/01
to
tayllor wrote:

> Thank you for posting this press release that dejanews is no longer
> available to search past messages as it once was.
>
> I am being asked by a few fellow goofs on a local newsgroup to produce any
> posts from this one user on winnipeg.general from 1994 to 1999
> approximately and can not.

Are you a stalker?



> I simply said that yes, this professor did swear in his posts mutliple times
> (hundreds) of times in his thousands of posts over the few years of posting
> on "wpg.general" and I can't seem to get messages past the year 2000 on what
> was dejanews.com

Yes, you are a stalker.



> All I want to do is post a handful of posts back onto winnipeg.general to
> show were he used many of the words George Carline said you can't say on the
> radio :)

That's "Carlin", dickhead.



> I don't have any problem with him saying these things now, but at the time 6
> years ago, i found it unusual and not acceptable to have these words come
> out of a professor and from a free account aimed at me and others.
>
> Thanks if you can help me dig up old posts from 1994- 1999 on Norm.

You seem to be the type to start a new group, soc.support.stalking,
to help enable yourself and other stalkers to fuck with people.

When will you submit the RFD?

Christopher Jahn

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 9:29:51 PM2/13/01
to
And it came to pass that Peter da Silva wrote:

>In article <Xns9046EBB...@24.129.0.130>,
>Christopher Jahn <xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>Having said that, I did force RemarQ to filter out my posts
>>when they started ad-linking. But I made THEM figure it
>>out; I was specifically denying them the right to link my
>>words to product endorsements; I was not interested in
>>getting "off-record".
>>
>>Of course, they didn't do it until I billed them; then they
>>dropped me right off their servers.
>
>Did you do the same thing to Altavista and everyone else who
>put ads on search results?
>

Altavista has not done "ad-linking"; taking words in my post and
turning them into hyperlinks that lead to vendors. I have no
problem with people having banners on a site, expecially one
that provides a service.

--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler

My favorite weapon is the look in your eyes

To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom

piranha

unread,
Feb 13, 2001, 10:09:58 PM2/13/01
to
ri...@bofh.concordia.ca (Rich Lafferty) wrote in
<slrn98ita...@bofh.concordia.ca>:

> In news.groups,
> piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote:
> >
> > leaving the deja engine in place until they've migrated would've
> > been better to begin with.
>
> I've seen this suggestion in a lot of places. Google didn't buy
> *hardware* from Deja, though, and certainly didn't buy administrative
> staff; I can't imagine any way in which Unix-based Google could have
> run Deja's old NT-based front end without taking a considerable loss,
> not to mention significant training and migration problems.

yes, doing it that way wouldn't make sense. i guess i am always
hoping for some transition period where the old guys keep the
old system up while the new guys get ready.

but since i know nothing about the intricacies behind this deal, i
was just shooting off my mouth wishfully.

NT-based, eh? that explains a lot.
--
-piranha

PeterD

unread,
Feb 14, 2001, 12:00:57 AM2/14/01
to
Matthew L. Bruce wrote in message
<66lj8tk0pd8otpmme...@4ax.com>...

>tayllor wrote:
>
>> Thank you for posting this press release that dejanews is no longer
>> available to search past messages as it once was.
>>
>> I am being asked by a few fellow goofs on a local newsgroup to
produce any
>> posts from this one user on winnipeg.general from 1994 to 1999
>> approximately and can not.
>
>Are you a stalker?

WoW! Here's a person who's never Don, never had a chat with him, doesn't
know him from Adam.

And yet after only five lines of text he sees DOn for what he is.

And no offence to Matthew, but I dont' think it was a particularly
clever insight that caused you to come the the conclusion. :-)

Now why is it, Don, that a total stranger can spot you for a stalker but
you persist in claiming you're not?

I mean, when you threatened to call my family at 4 in the morning,
you're not a stalker.
When you harrass and phone the employer of the person you found
disagreeing with you, you're not a stalker.

Come on, Don, you really do walk like a duck! <lol>
---------
Peter D


Delores Wollmann

unread,
Feb 14, 2001, 1:44:25 AM2/14/01
to


"Obviously"?!?

Rob Mitchell

unread,
Feb 14, 2001, 7:34:23 AM2/14/01
to
In article <9vjj8tcaq8ee0n6tv...@4ax.com>, Biil Palmer
<wil...@netscum.net> wrote:

Erm, ok. I used Deja continuously since October '98, & still have never
seen any evidence that any "pay" service of Deja archived XNA posts.

Dave Korn

unread,
Feb 14, 2001, 6:06:41 AM2/14/01