Attn: SCV Cable Modem Users
Andie
news.singa.pore.net. The news server actually scans each message to
be posted from the server for lines beginning with > and if it finds
the number of lines without > too few compared with lines beginnning
with >(quoted text), it will reject the posting, claiming too much
quoted text.
I have tried Cyberway and Singnet's news servers and have never
encountered such an odd policy. I do not think Pacnet practises such a
policy either. Granted, cable users can still post to Cyberway's news
server but I think we should write in to SCV to get them to fix the
cable news server.
SCV's reason for the policy is to prevent messages from getting longer
and longer, still I don't think it's right for them to control how we
wish to post. After all, if other local ISPs don't appear to practice
this rule, don't tell me they're going to reject incoming postings
from other news servers that don't meet their rules?
If you feel the same way, I urge you to write in to
ne...@singa.pore.net and cmt...@scv.com.sg to encourage the News
Administrator to remove the restriction.
Dave Hazelwood
Then, all of a sudden it went away. On hindsight it might have been
a setting in my own newsreader I used to post as opposed to singnet?
For lack of time I never bothered to check but it may be useful for
you to know that I did have the same problem with singnet on a
normal dial-up circuit.
Andie
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On 03 Feb 2000 22:41:00 +0800, Andie <nic...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>
> >SCV has a very strange policy about posting from their news server,
> >news.singa.pore.net. The news server actually scans each message to
> >be posted from the server for lines beginning with > and if it finds
> >the number of lines without > too few compared with lines beginnning
> >with >(quoted text), it will reject the posting, claiming too much
> >quoted text.
>
> That used to happen on SingNet too.
That must have been some time ago. I know for a fact Cyberway used to have a ton
of restrictions on their news server, which caused them to lose messages and
prevent messages posted from Cyberway from propagating, or worse still messages
posted from Cyberway don't even appear in the Cyberway news server. That was all
in the past, now no such adverse restrictions exist.
>
>
> >I have tried Cyberway and Singnet's news servers and have never
> >encountered such an odd policy. I do not think Pacnet practises such a
>
> Like I have said, it has happened on SingNet's server before. In my
> over four years with SingNet, I have come across this happening
> sparodically.
Hmm, in that case I would prefer to post from Cyberway. Since you're also a
Pacnet user, can you comment of whether such restrictions exist on their
servers?
>
>
> >policy either. Granted, cable users can still post to Cyberway's news
> >server but I think we should write in to SCV to get them to fix the
> >cable news server.
>
> WHY?!
>
> I think it's a good thing which should be left in place.
Well to each his own. If SCV chooses not to remove the restriction, I'll just
post from Cyberway's News Server. Less "advertisement" for SCV, that's all.
>
>
> It prevents spamming and _ STOPS _ stupid jerks from quoting the
> entire message, only to leave a one word comment to it.
It doesn't really prevent spamming, since Cyberway's server is available for
posting and they certainly don't have this restriction. More likely, you will
lose perfectly acceptable messages. It doesn't make any sense to control your
own users so strictly when other users from other ISPs, at least Cyberway,
aren't bound in similar fashion. The setting to check for quoted text doesn't
control incoming messages, ie you will still be exposed to the so-called "SPAM"
from other news servers, unless you install other filters as well. Something SCV
is doing I believe, judging from the number of lost messages.
>
>
> >SCV's reason for the policy is to prevent messages from getting longer
> >and longer, still I don't think it's right for them to control how we
> >wish to post. After all, if other local ISPs don't appear to practice
>
> I think they have _ ALL THE RIGHT _ to do that.
I don't think so. Cyberway used to have all their restrictions but the customers
told them to change and they did, to survive.
> If some people doesn't
> know how to keep their message short, and that some inconsiderate lazy
> jerk doesn't know now to format and edit their posting, then this is
> the only solution to it.
I feel it is too drastic. You may be able to control the few posters from SCV
but you can't control the rest of them posting from other servers, unless you
choose to filter them out too...sounds like censorship to me. Users should be
free to use kill files to filter whatever they do not wish to read instead of
allowing the provider to do the censorship.
>
>
> >this rule, don't tell me they're going to reject incoming postings
> >from other news servers that don't meet their rules?
>
> That I won't know.
>
> But I noticed that some postings that appear on the Cyberway's news
> server do not appear on SCV's.
Heh, sounds like they have other strange restrictions on their infeed too, hence
losing lots of valid messages. If you ask me, I think SCV's news server is a bit
like what Cyberway's used to be, at least until they finally fixed it.
Andie
news.singa.pore.net. The news server actually scans each message to
be posted from the server for lines beginning with > and if it finds
the number of lines without > too few compared with lines beginnning
with >(quoted text), it will reject the posting, claiming too much
quoted text.
I have tried Cyberway and Singnet's news servers and have never
encountered such an odd policy. I do not think Pacnet practises such a
policy either. Granted, cable users can still post to Cyberway's news
server but I think we should write in to SCV to get them to fix the
cable news server.
SCV's reason for the policy is to prevent messages from getting longer
and longer, still I don't think it's right for them to control how we
wish to post. After all, if other local ISPs don't appear to practice
this rule, don't tell me they're going to reject incoming postings
from other news servers that don't meet their rules?
If you feel the same way, I urge you to write in to
ne...@singa.pore.net and cmt...@scv.com.sg to encourage the News
Administrator to remove the restriction.
This message is also copied to the SCV News Administrator as well as
the Customer Service Department.
Andie
>I used to have this problem all the time with singnet newsserver also.
>Then, all of a sudden it went away. On hindsight it might have been
>a setting in my own newsreader I used to post as opposed to singnet?
Someone else has written to me about the same thing. I believe Singnet
used to impose similar restrictions on their news servers but these
have since been relaxed, due to customer feedback.
>
>For lack of time I never bothered to check but it may be useful for
>you to know that I did have the same problem with singnet on a
>normal dial-up circuit.
>
>
Similar restrictions were also imposed on Cyberway News Servers but
these have since been lifted. SCV would be wise to follow the steps of
the mature ISPs. It is highly likely that the problem was not raised
earlier because SCV had other more serious problems with
their news server during the trial...I for one seldom saw any postings
from SCV getting propagated to the world until the recent past.
Andie
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 23:28:59 +0800, Andie <nic...@MailAndNews.com>
> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >lose perfectly acceptable messages. It doesn't make any sense to control your
> >own users so strictly when other users from other ISPs, at least Cyberway,
> >aren't bound in similar fashion. The setting to check for quoted text doesn't
> - snipped -
>
> It is my opinion that each ISP should be FREE to have their own
> policies as to what is acceptable or not.
>
> Somewhere, someone has to take the lead in reminding some of those
> slackers the least they could to when posting is:
>
> FORMAT THEIR POSTINGS PROPERLY.
A valid point.
>
>
> This is especially useful against those lazy morons who won't hesitate
> to cut and paste jokes onto the newsgroups without even removing the
> quote marks. It makes it very hard to read, and it takes up space on
> the news-server.
Like Fr**** ???
>
>
> - snipped -
> >I don't think so. Cyberway used to have all their restrictions but the customers
> >told them to change and they did, to survive.
>
> An ISP offers a whole lot of other services than just subscription
> plans to survive.
That's true but if you have a big subscriber who insists that the news server be
fixed and you choose not to do it for whatever reason, they'll just go elsewhere.
>
>
> - snipped -
> >I feel it is too drastic. You may be able to control the few posters from SCV
> >but you can't control the rest of them posting from other servers, unless you
>
> No one is asking for a total complete control over the rest of the
> bozos posting from another server since one can always resort to no
> posting crap from either Cyberway's webnews or remailers
>
> In short, I don't even think that the restriction is a bad one, thus
> there's no reason why it should be removed at all.
Exactly, why even have the restriction when it doesn't serve much use, except to
occasionally annoy legitimate posters?
>
>
> >choose to filter them out too...sounds like censorship to me. Users should be
> >free to use kill files to filter whatever they do not wish to read instead of
> >allowing the provider to do the censorship.
> - rest snipped -
>
> I was under the impression that if you change your quote marks to
> something else, you won't have a problem posting.
Quite right, but I've always thought that quote marks other than > looked pretty out
of place.
>
>
> Furthermore, this isn't even censorship.
The censorship bit is how they filter incoming messages.
> It's just a short reminder
> reminding the sender that there's too much quoted text in his posting,
> and he should learn to edit his postings accordingly. It also makes it
> difficult for someone to abuse his bandwidth to resend out a whole
> load of junk.
Sometimes, there is need to quote the whole story...for example if someone replies to
a message long overdue and earlier messages are most likely no longer found in most
news servers. Quotation in this case will provide the necessary perspective. I agree
this is rare, but it can happen.
>
>
> While there is no such restriction on a dial-up plan, the reason is
> simple, the more junk you send out, the more time you waste, and the
> more time you waste, the more money you are charged, all to the
> advantage of the ISP and that isn't the case for SCV at this moment.
Magix has an unlimited package and their news server isn't half as picky as SCV's.
Besides, SCV's users can always "abuse" Cyberway's News Server.
>
>
> Anyway, my definition of censorship is that it accepts your postings,
> and then throws it out without even telling you why, just like what
> the SPH do to criticism of the government.
Yeah, just like this thread. If you notice, it isn't propagating out of SCV's news
server. Kinda proves my point : - )
>
>
> But I have no problem with SCV takes your advice, however. This is
> just a personal opinion. :-)
Thanks. Guess I can't count on you to write in. Maybe tell them about the missing
messages.
Andie
>Yeah, just like this thread. If you notice, it isn't propagating out of SCV's news
>server. Kinda proves my point : - )
Just noticed this article popping up in the Cyberway News Server so it
is propagating, albeit a little slowly.
Andie
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 00:21:17 +0800, Andie <nic...@MailAndNews.com>
> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >> An ISP offers a whole lot of other services than just subscription
> >> plans to survive.
> >That's true but if you have a big subscriber who insists that the news server be
> >fixed and you choose not to do it for whatever reason, they'll just go elsewhere.
>
> You mean you are that big subscriber?
We'll see...;)
>
>
> - snipped -
> >> In short, I don't even think that the restriction is a bad one, thus
> >> there's no reason why it should be removed at all.
> >Exactly, why even have the restriction when it doesn't serve much use, except to
> >occasionally annoy legitimate posters?
>
> _ OCCASIONALLY _, you say?
Bad enough to me.
>
> See my point? You almost won't notice it.
It's very irritating when it happens. BTW, an easy workaround is simply to include lots of
space at the end of the message.
> >> Furthermore, this isn't even censorship.
> >The censorship bit is how they filter incoming messages.
>
> Maybe that part ought to be fixed. Having some kind of control over
> the ISP's own users is ok but I don't think postings from another ISP
> falls under SCV's jurisdiction.
>
> >> It's just a short reminder
> >> reminding the sender that there's too much quoted text in his posting,
> >> and he should learn to edit his postings accordingly. It also makes it
> >> difficult for someone to abuse his bandwidth to resend out a whole
> >> load of junk.
> >Sometimes, there is need to quote the whole story...for example if someone replies to
> >a message long overdue and earlier messages are most likely no longer found in most
> >news servers. Quotation in this case will provide the necessary perspective. I agree
> >this is rare, but it can happen.
>
> Personally speaking, if a posting is long overdue, it is _ LIKELY_
> that the discussion may already have died off and the thread should
> simply be ignored.
>
> Furthermore, the posting itself may still be found in deja-news,
> unless you turned on " X-no-archive " to yes. But I heard that
> remarq.com ignores that feature, since anything that begins with an X
> is experimental.. or so the guy working in SingNet told me. :-)
Rght, but it can be rather unwieldy to search for the context of a message in Dejanews or
remarq.com, much more than simply posting the context in the message itself.
>
>
> >> While there is no such restriction on a dial-up plan, the reason is
> >> simple, the more junk you send out, the more time you waste, and the
> >> more time you waste, the more money you are charged, all to the
> >> advantage of the ISP and that isn't the case for SCV at this moment.
> >Magix has an unlimited package and their news server isn't half as picky as SCV's.
> >Besides, SCV's users can always "abuse" Cyberway's News Server.
>
> Then by all means go to Magix.
>
> It's a FREE MARKET.
I would rather stick with SCV and Cyberway's News Server. Never had much love for Singtel.
>
>
> That's not even mentioning that there are possibly quite a sizable
> number of subscribers out there that doesn't even know what newsgroups
> are, or what USENET is. You get my point? :-|
Ignorance is bliss. But those who do know about Usenet should be informed of the problems
with SCV's news server, and hopefully with enough user feedback, these problems can be
ironed out.
>
>
> >> Anyway, my definition of censorship is that it accepts your postings,
> >> and then throws it out without even telling you why, just like what
> >> the SPH do to criticism of the government.
> >Yeah, just like this thread. If you notice, it isn't propagating out of SCV's news
> >server. Kinda proves my point : - )
>
> I noticed that some of the postings sometimes doesn't propagate out of
> SCV's news server, even when it accepts it without problem.
>
> >> But I have no problem with SCV takes your advice, however. This is
> >> just a personal opinion. :-)
> >Thanks. Guess I can't count on you to write in. Maybe tell them about the missing
> >messages.
>
> You mean those missing messages coming from outside and also those
> that aren't propagating?
>
> Gimme that email again addy again, please. This one I need to do
> something about..
Andie
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 01:21:23 +0800, Andie <nic...@MailAndNews.com>
> wrote:
>
> - snipped -
> >> _ OCCASIONALLY _, you say?
> >Bad enough to me.
>
> Odd. It hasn't happened to me yet, so far.
You need to include lots of quoted text. It only happens when messages reach a certain length.
>
>
> But I have had problems with OUTLOOK EXPRESS. It keeps telling me an
> email id is INVALID, and refuse to send it when I checked the id and
> it's perfectly legitimate.
Did you try changing your e-mail ID just for testing?
>
>
> Now, that's annoying.
>
> - snipped -
> >> See my point? You almost won't notice it.
> >It's very irritating when it happens. BTW, an easy workaround is simply to include lots of
> >space at the end of the message.
>
> Talking about this, there was several occasion whereby I come across
> postings that _ REFUSED _ to be send, even when there's NO quoted
> parts.
>
> I have to cut and paste the whole lot to a _ NEW _ message, then it
> sends out peacefully.
>
> That's really an annoyance, and it's a software problem with Agent,
> not a server problem.
Probably. But the check for quoted text is a feature of INN 1.7, which SCV uses as their news
server.
>
>
> - snipped -
> >> Furthermore, the posting itself may still be found in deja-news,
> >> unless you turned on " X-no-archive " to yes. But I heard that
> >> remarq.com ignores that feature, since anything that begins with an X
> >> is experimental.. or so the guy working in SingNet told me. :-)
> >Rght, but it can be rather unwieldy to search for the context of a message in Dejanews or
> >remarq.com, much more than simply posting the context in the message itself.
>
> Cut and paste the URL link in the article??
>
> I don't know.
>
> I personally think it is the senders responsibility to make sure that
> if the recipient wants something, he should provide the relevant
> information as to where to get those information if it's not possible
> or convenient to provide it himself. Or if the recipient _ THINKS _
> he doesn't know what the fish the other person is talking about, then
> he could at least ask for the other party to provide it.
>
> I know it's troublesome. Might as well provide it right away.. but who
> ask some suckers to post just a one word reply to a whole article?
>
> Talking about which, I recall the time back in BBS, when someone likes
> responding to a whole mail with just one word: FNORD.
>
> Whatever that means.
Haha, that's part of the art of trolling :)
>
>
> - snipped -
> >> Then by all means go to Magix.
> >> It's a FREE MARKET.
> >I would rather stick with SCV and Cyberway's News Server. Never had much love for Singtel.
>
> The engineers in SingNet NOC are all pretty nice people, actually.
>
>
> They listen to feedback, if you know how to get to them.
>
> I am not saying that their helpdesk people are not good or what.. but
> I can understand the position they are in, when a person calls up
> regarding a problem because it's very hard to offer help for something
> you can't see or visualize in the first place, not to mention that
> some people simply _ DO NOT _ respond to your questions and
> suggestions to solve their problems.
Heh, the only time I called their helpdesk was to inform them that news2.singnet.com.sg was
inaccessible.
>
>
> >> That's not even mentioning that there are possibly quite a sizable
> >> number of subscribers out there that doesn't even know what newsgroups
> >> are, or what USENET is. You get my point? :-|
> >Ignorance is bliss. But those who do know about Usenet should be informed of the problems
> >with SCV's news server, and hopefully with enough user feedback, these problems can be
> >ironed out.
>
> I agree with that part, but what I mean is that your point that if
> sufficient users makes a point, they will sit up and take notice or
> lose them doesn't stand. ;-)
Why? It was SCV themselves who said this.
>
>
> - snipped -
> >> You mean those missing messages coming from outside and also those
> >> that aren't propagating?
> >> Gimme that email again addy again, please. This one I need to do
> >> something about..
> >ne...@singa.pore.net and cmt...@scv.com.sg
>
> Will write to them after CNY.
>
> Anyway, now I see why you are adding spaces to your articles....
>
> Have you tried cutting and pasting your entire posting and post it as
> a new message and see if that works?
No. But the checking done at the server end basically only checks lines with > versus lines
without.
BTW, I got the same annoying notice with this message, hence the space below.
Andie
Let's have some diversity ;)
Andie
Andrew MacLane wrote:
> No no.. you got me wrong.
>
> Still write to SCV for the problem, really.
>
> But do try out the other method as well.
>
Well as they say, have a good one, CNY that is.
David Chong
solve and wouldn't bother to say it because of repercussions and
re-regulation.
Just replace the ">" with something else. Got it?
Andie <nic...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:wkd7qez...@MailAndNews.com...
> SCV has a very strange policy about posting from their news server,
> news.singa.pore.net. The news server actually scans each message to
> be posted from the server for lines beginning with > and if it finds
> the number of lines without > too few compared with lines beginnning
> with >(quoted text), it will reject the posting, claiming too much
> quoted text.
>
> I have tried Cyberway and Singnet's news servers and have never
> encountered such an odd policy. I do not think Pacnet practises such a
> policy either. Granted, cable users can still post to Cyberway's news
> server but I think we should write in to SCV to get them to fix the
> cable news server.
>
> SCV's reason for the policy is to prevent messages from getting longer
> and longer, still I don't think it's right for them to control how we
> wish to post. After all, if other local ISPs don't appear to practice
> this rule, don't tell me they're going to reject incoming postings
> from other news servers that don't meet their rules?
>
> If you feel the same way, I urge you to write in to
> ne...@singa.pore.net and cmt...@scv.com.sg to encourage the News
> Administrator to remove the restriction.
>
Andie
As mentioned before in the thread, this isn't a good solution as not
all news readers come with this feature. It would be a bit much to
expect a user to migrate from their preferred news reader to one that
has the feature just to circumvent the problem.
A more universally applicable method is to add space below your
posting when the problem is encountered.
The best solution obviously would be for the news admin to remove the
restriction, something I believe will happen soon.
The other thing, don't be too concerned about "repercussions and
re-regulation". Sometimes you just have to open your mouth to ask.
Andie
<na6v9scm24p8cvt7d...@ckt.org>:
>
>- From RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines:
>
>"Content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content."
>
>Or at leat equal quoted content. PacNet enforces this rule on its
>newsserver and rejection by the server provides a good check on one's post.
> I think it is a good rule to have because it is just too easy to post "Me
>Too" messages, where content is limited to agreement with previous posts.
Hmmm let's see. It looks like you didn't follow your rule in this instance
either. You wrote a total of 7 lines(signature/PGP not included) against what you
quoted of 9 lines...note it doesn't even equal the quoted content.
That aside, it would be interesting to see how many postings in Usenet actually
obey the rule that "content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content". If
the rule really held any merit, news administrators should filter off any
postings that didn't meet the ruling but of course that would quite literally
change the face of Usenet. Personally, I think that requirement in the RFC should
be amended. Afterall, with the cost of bandwidth and storage going down, what's
the problem with some extra quoted text?
While many Usenet servers had such a restriction in place around the time the RFC
came out(1995), today you find that the majority of Usenet servers don't
implement such a posting restriction.
Furthermore, there is also the additional sticky problem of educating the users
to post correctly.
Andie
>On 8 Feb 2000 06:30:21 GMT, nic...@bigfoot.com (Andie) wrote:
>
>>Hmmm let's see. It looks like you didn't follow your rule in this instance
>> either. You wrote a total of 7 lines(signature/PGP not included) against
>>what you quoted of 9 lines...note it doesn't even equal the quoted
>>content.
>
>I guess they don't count word for word nor line for line which would depend
>a lot on how one formats one's post.
Actually they do count line for line, but they don't follow
the RFC to the letter. IIRC, the default implementation to check for
quoted text in INN 1.7 is actually far more lenient than the specs.
>Perhaps as long as there is a
>semblance of fair trade of words, one's posting would, in the main, go
>through. And on one's side is the sig, which does count.
For short articles, the news server normally isn't too fastidious. The
enforcement gets stricter as the message gets longer and longer. BTW,
the sig doesn't actually qualify as new content...but the server
doesn't know better. It's a bit like adding extra space below the
posting...the standard trick to get around the restriction.
Andie
>On 08 Feb 2000 20:50:58 +0800, Andie <nic...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>the sig doesn't actually qualify as new content...but the server
>
>Sure. But that doesn't make it any less important since the sig is
>actually crucial to the post.
Only posts from certain people, not many of these around ;)