Pong
Johny B Good
--
Regards JB Good
Johny B Good
wrote:
>
>
Sorry, couldn't resist testing for group deadness. Considering that this
NG replaces uk.comp.os.win2000 and uk.comp.os.win95 (and possibly a few
others istr), I'm surprised at how quickly group activity has come to a
virtual standstill since J.P. Gilliver (John)'s post last June.
Over the last 3 or 4 years the use of usenet seems to be declining at an
alarming rate. A situation, no doubt, not helped by asset stripping
enterprises such as Breathe Networks Ltd gobbling up all those tiny niche
UK ISPs that still gave a fuck regarding maintenance of service.
This all begs the question; Apart from myself and J.P. Gilliver(John),
just how many others remain subscribed to this NG?
--
Regards JB Good
J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message <op.v0fd151kkd9x7s@fred>, Johny B Good <inv...@ntlworld.com>
writes:
[]
> Over the last 3 or 4 years the use of usenet seems to be declining at
>an alarming rate. A situation, no doubt, not helped by asset stripping
Agreed. (Though one or two of the 'groups I take are still busy enough
that I have to skip threads to keep up.)
>enterprises such as Breathe Networks Ltd gobbling up all those tiny
>niche UK ISPs that still gave a fuck regarding maintenance of service.
I hadn't been aware of this. I think this 'group is still carried by the
four servers I use (though at least two of those are really Highwinds, I
know).
>
> This all begs the question; Apart from myself and J.P. Gilliver(John),
>just how many others remain subscribed to this NG?
>
I hear the theme from "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", as the
brushwood rolls across the main street ...
Incidentally, alt.windows7.general seems quite healthy.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Nudists are people who wear one button shirts
Chris Holford
writes
--
Chris Holford
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.comp.os.ms-windows:
AOL. I suppose it doesn't help that Windows doesn't come bundled with a
newsreader any more since Outlook Express was phased out (I know you can
download Live Mail separately). I suppose my combo of slrn for Windows on
news.eternal-september.org isn't exactly the most common one, but I've yet
to find a newsreader with as good a killfile. I think also it's a lot easier
to find answers to Windows questions via Google and web forums than it is
Usenet these days. The microsoft.* ones have mostly been migrated to
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/forums/default.mspx
mh.
--
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk
From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.
Johny B Good
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Ping
>
> In message <op.v0fd151kkd9x7s@fred>, Johny B Good <inv...@ntlworld.com>
> writes:
> []
>> Over the last 3 or 4 years the use of usenet seems to be declining at
>> an alarming rate. A situation, no doubt, not helped by asset stripping
>
> Agreed. (Though one or two of the 'groups I take are still busy enough
> that I have to skip threads to keep up.)
>
>> enterprises such as Breathe Networks Ltd gobbling up all those tiny
>> niche UK ISPs that still gave a fuck regarding maintenance of service.
>
> I hadn't been aware of this. I think this 'group is still carried by the
> four servers I use (though at least two of those are really Highwinds, I
> know).
I wasn't thinking of the server situation, more the user base declining
(particularly true of zetnet users who seemed quite prolific in usenet
postings out of all proportion to their numbers - something to do with a
very neat and proprietary to zetnet email/news client with the snappy name
of ZIMACS[1])
>>
>> This all begs the question; Apart from myself and J.P. Gilliver(John),
>> just how many others remain subscribed to this NG?
>>
> I hear the theme from "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", as the
> brushwood rolls across the main street ...
>
> Incidentally, alt.windows7.general seems quite healthy.
Unfortunately, not much use to me unless a good portion of the postings
there deal with win2k and winXP issues (aside from the obvious vista/win7
networking woes).
[1] ZIMACS is actually an acronym but I can't recall exactly what _all_
the letters stood for. It's an email/newsreader client provided by zetnet
back in the day before mere mortals could afford broadband. It was
designed to download/upload compressed packets of email and news from
zetnet's servers via a dial up connection so they could be perused when
off line, thus keeping the Lo-Call access connection time to a minimum.
The later version could use alternative dial up connections to disposable
PAYG ISP accounts such as Freeserve and the 200 odd other freeserve styled
offerings that swiftly sprang into being from the likes of Tesco et al.
Most importantly the alternative connectivity included lan connectivity
via a gateway connection to a broadband service (in my case, ntl cable)
which eliminated the cost of phone calls - I kept my 50 quid plus vat a
year subscription going after taking over my daughter's ntl account when
she moved out about 7 or 8 years ago).
If the ZIMACS software could be reverse engineered (it's effectively
'Abandonware' now [2]) so that it could connect to any mainstream mail and
news servers, it would (IMHO) wipe the floor with all the rubbish
offerings available today[3]
[2] BNL "Threw baby out with the bathwater" when they _finally_ shut down
the zetnet packet servers some two or three years back, thus killing off
zetnet's USP that had created the high level of loyalty amongst their
long-time clientèle.
Because ZIMACS was proprietary to zetnet's unique way of downloading and
uploading email and news in the form of compressed packets, it's now
totally useless as it stands, hence the 'Abandonware' label.
[3] I've tried pretty well all the free email client software (Xnews,
Gravity and the others) and landed up going back to my first substitute
for ZIMACS, Opera Mail (I tried it out first because it was already
installed as part and parcel of the web browser).
Opera Mail is a klunky news reader client that still irritates me but I
use it on account the alternatives are even more irritating to use,
especially when it comes to deleting unwanted postings which they refuse
to do claiming, rather stupidly, that they're not my postings to delete.
Well, duh! I know they're not _MY_ postings but the list they're in _IS_
mine and all I'm trying to do is remove them from my list, not delete them
from usenet's servers. By God! There are some seriously cretinous
programmers out there.
Er, sorry about that little rant, but it's hard to totally resist venting
off whenever the question of email/newsreader client software comes up.
--
Regards JB Good
Johny B Good
AOL! ;-)
--
Regards JB Good
J. P. Gilliver (John)
writes:
[]
>> Incidentally, alt.windows7.general seems quite healthy.
>
> Unfortunately, not much use to me unless a good portion of the
>postings there deal with win2k and winXP issues (aside from the
>obvious vista/win7 networking woes).
No, I fear there are not a lot of misplaced postings. Of the other
'groups, I would say m.p.xp.newusers is most active, but still a shadow
of its former self.
[]
> If the ZIMACS software could be reverse engineered (it's effectively
>'Abandonware' now [2]) so that it could connect to any mainstream mail
>and news servers, it would (IMHO) wipe the floor with all the rubbish
>offerings available today[3]
>
Demon (or Thus, or Cable & Wireless) have done more or less the same
with Turnpike. This suite (which used to be free for use with Demon,
eventually came down to about 15 + VAT for anyone else) has a pretty
loyal following, though it really doesn't work properly with modern
emails/posts (it was always standards-compliant to a fault; the problem
is that Microsoft's non-compliant way of doing things became the norm).
Though I think most users of Turnpike are single users, it is a _sort_
of Microsoft exchange system, with a part "Connect" that does the
connecting (fetching and sending of emails and posts), and a part
"Turnpike" that does the actual reading etc.; in a small office
environment, you could have Connect on one machine, with all the others
getting their emails and news from that. It was priced slightly
differently for that version, with a price per seat, or something like
that.
At the final killing, the last upgrade (a) turned any copy already
bought into a multi-seat version, (b) reset the price around the 200
(yes, hundred) mark for any new purchasers. Over the following few
years, the Turnpike development team were moved to other projects or
fired. In theory, you can still buy it (though version 6 - the last -
doesn't work under Windows 7 64 bit except in VM mode [v5 does! But is
very different]). I don't know if they've sold any new keys since it
went to the 200 price. It still has a loyal following - some of us out
of inertia, some because they say its kill, routing and other such rules
are hard to equal.
One of the reasons _it_ won't become open source (many of the
development team frequented the Turnpike newsgroup,
demon.ip.support.turnpike [which still limps on], which is how we know),
despite many wishing that it would, is that apparently it includes some
proprietary (i. e. bought-in and used under licence) code (for what, I
can't remember - picture handling possibly). And now the team is no
more, there's probably no-one able to remove the relevant bits. I
suspect the same may be true for the software you wish for.
>
>[2] BNL "Threw baby out with the bathwater" when they _finally_ shut
>down the zetnet packet servers some two or three years back, thus
>killing off zetnet's USP that had created the high level of loyalty
>amongst their long-time clientčle.
I think they also had it because of good customer service; I'm partly
confusing them with Zen, but I think Zetnet did use to come high in the
satisfaction tables. I know I considered then once many years back, but
IIRR that was a time when where they were was relevant to costs (at
least I think that was the reason).
>
> Because ZIMACS was proprietary to zetnet's unique way of downloading
>and uploading email and news in the form of compressed packets, it's
>now totally useless as it stands, hence the 'Abandonware' label.
Oh, _have_ they actually released the source code then? Or made the
executable free? (Oh, hang on, you said it was free anyway, just only
usable with the appropriate servers at the other end.)
>
>[3] I've tried pretty well all the free email client software (Xnews,
>Gravity and the others) and landed up going back to my first substitute
>for ZIMACS, Opera Mail (I tried it out first because it was already
>installed as part and parcel of the web browser).
I'm still with Turnpike; when setting others up, I used - many years ago
- to go for Free Agent, and now use Thunderbird, not because it's the
best (I've not tried enough to say), but because it's reasonable, has
the same interface as mail (I use it for both when setting up for
friends), and reasonably widespread. [For example, most ISPs, news
servers, etc. know about it, and often provide how-to-set-up-with-us
pages for it.]
>
> Opera Mail is a klunky news reader client that still irritates me but
>I use it on account the alternatives are even more irritating to use,
I presume Opera Mail came out of the Opera Newsreader. I used Netscape
Mail (at work) for a while, and it was fair.
>especially when it comes to deleting unwanted postings which they
>refuse to do claiming, rather stupidly, that they're not my postings
>to delete. Well, duh! I know they're not _MY_ postings but the list
>they're in _IS_ mine and all I'm trying to do is remove them from my
>list, not delete them from usenet's servers. By God! There are some
Are you talking about a mailing list? Or do you mean the "_computer_
they're on is mine"? Anyway, Turnpike has "thread kill" options among
many. (And can handle mailing lists as if they were newsgroups,
including expiring postings after a user-specified time unless marked
keep.)
>seriously cretinous programmers out there.
You're not kidding.
>
> Er, sorry about that little rant, but it's hard to totally resist
>venting off whenever the question of email/newsreader client software
>comes up.
>
It didn't, actually (-:! However, since this is the first thread I've
seen in this newsgroup for ages, and is marginally on-topic, I don't
think anyone will mind!
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<sp...@nukesoft.co.uk> writes:
[]
>AOL. I suppose it doesn't help that Windows doesn't come bundled with a
>newsreader any more since Outlook Express was phased out (I know you can
>download Live Mail separately). I suppose my combo of slrn for Windows on
Live mail doesn't quote properly, at least in version 15, from what I've
seen and heard. (That is, it doesn't prepend the ">" to quoted text, so
- as well as its users tending to top-post - you can't tell who said
what.)
>news.eternal-september.org isn't exactly the most common one, but I've yet
I'm with e-s too, and using Turnpike.
>to find a newsreader with as good a killfile. I think also it's a lot easier
I haven't tried any others, but TP's kill rules serve my (simple) needs.
>to find answers to Windows questions via Google and web forums than it is
>Usenet these days. The microsoft.* ones have mostly been migrated to
>http://www.microsoft.com/communities/forums/default.mspx
>
>mh.
I don't have time (let alone inclination) to read web forums as a matter
of course, though may dip into them for a specific problem occasionally
(often without success). Since I've started taking it, I've found
alt-windows7.general pretty helpful and friendly, so the spirit of
usenet is not dead.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
(John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes:
[]
>>Usenet these days. The microsoft.* ones have mostly been migrated to
>>http://www.microsoft.com/communities/forums/default.mspx
>>
>>mh.
>I don't have time (let alone inclination) to read web forums as a
>matter of course, though may dip into them for a specific problem
>occasionally (often without success). Since I've started taking it,
>I've found alt-windows7.general pretty helpful and friendly, so the
>spirit of usenet is not dead.
Oops, that's alt.* not alt-*, of course.
Johny B Good
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <op.v0fxcqybkd9x7s@fred>, Johny B Good <inv...@ntlworld.com>
> writes:
> []
>>> Incidentally, alt.windows7.general seems quite healthy.
>>
>> Unfortunately, not much use to me unless a good portion of the
>> postings there deal with win2k and winXP issues (aside from the
>> obvious vista/win7 networking woes).
>
> No, I fear there are not a lot of misplaced postings. Of the other
> 'groups, I would say m.p.xp.newusers is most active, but still a shadow
> of its former self.
I've added that group. Opera Mail downloaded almost 50 thousand postings!
Thankfully, unlike what happened when I subscribed to
virginmedia.support.usenet, the threads were all expanded making it easy
to delete all bar the last 400 odd postings since about January.
ZIMACS was a pure text only email/newsreader client with no html
rendering and no automated (decode and) open of attachments which made it
proof against email exploits.
Almost every user preferred the lack of such 'convenience' features which
would otherwise (needlessly) introduce vulnerabilities. All you could do
with attachments was to decode and save them, leaving the dangerous step
of opening them as a totally manual operation where the user could decide
what application to use (normally the AV scanner when in doubt) before
opening them with the default handler, perhaps after a quick look with
HexEdit if it happened to be an oversized *.PIF or *.LNK file (registry
hacked to show such file extensions) or a *.SCR or *.EXE (fileview options
set to show these extensions, of course!).
AFAIAA, the code is not open source. I believe it was written by the late
Tim Cole who was one of the founding members of zetnet. Another chap
(whose name I can't recall) took over its maintenance. Presumably the IP
now belongs to BNL in theory. They've probably lost all records of it
since they had F all idea of what and how the system servers at zetnet it
relied upon worked.
This is the most extreme definition of "Abandonware" you can have (not
like the situation with, say, Windows 95 osr2 where the company still has
all records of its development but has totally lost _all_ interest in it
as a "CashCow" - no point wasting time and 'Good will' prosecuting
unlicensed users).
>>
>> [2] BNL "Threw baby out with the bathwater" when they _finally_ shut
>> down the zetnet packet servers some two or three years back, thus
>> killing off zetnet's USP that had created the high level of loyalty
>> amongst their long-time clientèle.
>
> I think they also had it because of good customer service; I'm partly
> confusing them with Zen, but I think Zetnet did use to come high in the
> satisfaction tables. I know I considered then once many years back, but
> IIRR that was a time when where they were was relevant to costs (at
> least I think that was the reason).
Well, until the BNL fiasco (apparently SOP for this company) zetnet had
an excellent reputation for service. Unfortunately, they weren't able to
offer as a cheap an ADSL service compared to the Big Names in the ISP
'industry'. In fact It was cheaper to subscribe to both zetnet's basic
service and NTL's cable BB service combined (which, iirc was a 4Mbps
service for most of that period) than it was to rely on zetnet's 512Kbps
ADLS offering alone.
Not mailing lists, just the individual postings from my newsreader's
database.
--
Regards JB Good
John Hall
>Gilliver(John), just how many others remain subscribed to this
>NG?
Holds up hand.
--
John Hall
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
Winston S Churchill (1874-1965)
John Hall
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes:
[about Turnpike]
<snip>
>At the final killing, the last upgrade (a) turned any copy already
>bought into a multi-seat version, (b) reset the price around the 200
>(yes, hundred) mark for any new purchasers. Over the following
>few years, the Turnpike development team were moved to other
>projects or fired.
If memory serves, it had already been announced that there would be no
further development work on the package, only bug fixes, even /before/
they put the price up! Did they really think that anyone would pay 200
quid for software which wouldn't be further developed? Or was it just to
make sure that there wouldn't be any new users, so that they could
justify the final dismantling of the last remnant of the development
team? (To be fair, after the "only bug fixes" announcement, they did
subsequently release a version that would work with Vista, but I had the
impression that the work for that was done largely in the developers'
spare time.)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
writes:
> ZIMACS was a pure text only email/newsreader client with no html
>rendering and no automated (decode and) open of attachments which made
>it proof against email exploits.
Turnpike renders "safe" HTML (i. e. doesn't run any scripts), and also
gives you the choice (via buttons at the top) of seeing the plain text
version if there is one. (IIRR which it shows by default is a
user-settable option.) It also displays (some - not I think PNG, as I
think that came later, and not _some_ GIF/JP(E)G either) inline images,
but it doesn't use the (Microsoft IIRR) image-rendering code that was
vulnerable to some exploit.
Incidentally, when I say inline, I mean inline. When TP sends an inline
image, it is truly that: however, OE - and most other email packages -
when encountering such a Turnpike email, renders all of the email that
follows the image as one or more attachments, displaying only the text
that comes before the image. (When OE appears to send an email with
inline images, it doesn't, it puts them all at the end, with _links_ in
the text where the images go.) I'm pretty sure that what TP does is
standards-compliant, but of course that never bothered M$ much.
>
> Almost every user preferred the lack of such 'convenience' features
>which would otherwise (needlessly) introduce vulnerabilities. All you
>could do with attachments was to decode and save them, leaving the
>dangerous step of opening them as a totally manual operation where the
>user could decide what application to use (normally the AV scanner
>when in doubt) before opening them with the default handler, perhaps
>after a quick look with HexEdit if it happened to be an oversized
>*.PIF or *.LNK file (registry hacked to show such file extensions) or
>a *.SCR or *.EXE (fileview options set to show these extensions, of course!).
Much the same in TP. As for turning on all extension displays, it's one
of the first things I do on any system that passes through my hands. I
suppose having them turned off for known filetypes maybe _was_ a
convenience for users originally (I still prefer to see them anyway but
I guess there might be many who'd rather not), but since
double-extension naming became such a common malware tactic quite a few
years ago, I'm surprised to see not displaying them is still IIRR the
default in Windows 7.
>
> AFAIAA, the code is not open source. I believe it was written by the
>late Tim Cole who was one of the founding members of zetnet. Another
>chap (whose name I can't recall) took over its maintenance. Presumably
>the IP now belongs to BNL in theory. They've probably lost all
>records of it since they had F all idea of what and how the system
>servers at zetnet it relied upon worked.
Well, worth asking (though I presume it has been asked - I presume there
were Zetnet and ZIMACS newsgroups). If it _doesn't_ contain any
bought-in code, it may still be possible to get it. Though the work to
remove the (de)compression code might be no minor task - and you'd still
then have only the functionality you had, which if you are honest
_would_ now look dated, with the addition of more (let alone the
arguments about what should come first) no SMOP. [I know all this from
the discussions around the demise of Turnpike.]
>
> This is the most extreme definition of "Abandonware" you can have (not
>like the situation with, say, Windows 95 osr2 where the company still
>has all records of its development but has totally lost _all_ interest
>in it as a "CashCow" - no point wasting time and 'Good will'
>prosecuting unlicensed users).
(_Are_ there that many still using 9_5_ (even OSR2)? I found 98SE -
particularly with lite, which put the hardware requirements back to
close to '95 - a significant improvement, to the extent that I haven't
got round to upgrading my desktop from it to XP. [Said desktop quite
capable of running XP: had motherboard upgrade, of necessity when the
old one died.]) I guess one difference with 95, compared to ZIMACS and
Turnpike, is that there will be code in it that's still part of Windows,
or perhaps at least there are people in MS that think that is so, so
they're never going to release the source code. [Have bits of it leaked
anyway? I don't frequent the right places to know.]
[]
> Well, until the BNL fiasco (apparently SOP for this company) zetnet
>had an excellent reputation for service. Unfortunately, they weren't
SOP for most ISPs, innit - good reputation until taken over? Demon were
fair, until taken over by Thus and then C&W. To be honest, I don't know
if they're good or bad now; I get my BB from PlusNet, since Demon's BB
offerings weren't in any way financially competitive for what _I_ want
(they may be for different types of user, such as small business or
heavy gamer). PlusNet, despite betraying their principles (they
originally made big of saying "there's no such thing as unlimited
broadband"), seem to be OK, touch wood, despite - so I'm told - actually
being owned by BT.
[]
>>> especially when it comes to deleting unwanted postings which they
>>>refuse to do claiming, rather stupidly, that they're not my postings
>>>to delete. Well, duh! I know they're not _MY_ postings but the list
>>>they're in _IS_ mine and all I'm trying to do is remove them from my
>>>list, not delete them from usenet's servers. By God! There are some
>>
>> Are you talking about a mailing list? Or do you mean the "_computer_
>>they're on is mine"? Anyway, Turnpike has "thread kill" options among
>>many. (And can handle mailing lists as if they were newsgroups,
>>including expiring postings after a user-specified time unless marked keep.)
>
> Not mailing lists, just the individual postings from my newsreader's
>database.
>
>
Turnpike does say something like "are you sure? It may not be possible
to refetch", but does _let_ you delete individual postings, and kill
threads. (It also, by default, expires postings after a set number of
days - and that's since it fetched them, not since they were posted -
the number being settable [including to 0 to disable] on a per-newsgroup
basis, which I haven't encountered on any other newsreader. [Individual
articles may be marked "Keep".] So I rarely bother to kill individual
postings - a handful of times in the many years I've been using TP; I
just let them expire [the default is three days], maybe killing [i. e.
stopping further downloads from] the thread or the author.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
... "Peter and out." ... "Kevin and out." (Link episode)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message <bf3IrQHo...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>, John Hall
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> writes:
>In article <SWJ0IBfX...@soft255.demon.co.uk>,
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes:
>[about Turnpike]
><snip>
>>At the final killing, the last upgrade (a) turned any copy already
>>bought into a multi-seat version, (b) reset the price around the 200
>>(yes, hundred) mark for any new purchasers. Over the following
>>few years, the Turnpike development team were moved to other
>>projects or fired.
>
>If memory serves, it had already been announced that there would be no
>further development work on the package, only bug fixes, even /before/
That's what IR too. (It not working under 7 presumably isn't considered
a "bug". Though by this time, even bugfixes presumably can't be done, as
they haven't the people - though I don't remember them ever specifically
saying they were stopping those. Though they might have said so and I've
just forgotten.)
>they put the price up! Did they really think that anyone would pay 200
>quid for software which wouldn't be further developed? Or was it just to
I've often wondered if they sold _any_ further keys after that point.
(It _might_ be possible to tell from the company's annual accounts,
though it could easily be hidden in the noise, if they so wished,
especially if the figure was zero anyway.)
>make sure that there wouldn't be any new users, so that they could
I certainly assumed so.
>justify the final dismantling of the last remnant of the development
>team? (To be fair, after the "only bug fixes" announcement, they did
>subsequently release a version that would work with Vista, but I had the
>impression that the work for that was done largely in the developers'
>spare time.)
(I hadn't thought about it, but I reckon you're probably right.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
... "Peter and out." ... "Kevin and out." (Link episode)
Wm...
demon.ip.support.turnpike "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
>(Now crossposted as it seemed relevant.)
Umm, gentlemen, what was this doing in t'other group in the first place?
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote
>Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:30:28 <Ry10BCQk...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
>demon.ip.support.turnpike "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
>
>>(Now crossposted as it seemed relevant.)
>
>Umm, gentlemen, what was this doing in t'other group in the first place?
>
Arising out of, originally, a wonder if the other 'group was alive at
all, I think.
Wm...
>In article <M+z$ZDXpP6TOFwZY@[127.0.0.1]>, on Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Wm...
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote
>>Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:30:28 <Ry10BCQk...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
>>demon.ip.support.turnpike "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>>(Now crossposted as it seemed relevant.)
>>
>>Umm, gentlemen, what was this doing in t'other group in the first place?
>>
>It had turned into a general discussion of ISPs and news/email clients.
>Arising out of, originally, a wonder if the other 'group was alive at
>all, I think.
Can't be arsed with the Dr Death stuff at the moment.
David Rance
> This all begs the question; Apart from myself and J.P. Gilliver(John),
>just how many others remain subscribed to this NG?
I'm subscribed to it but only because I can't be bothered to cancel it!
David
--
David Rance writing from Le Mesnil Villement, Calvados, France
http://rance.org.uk
Rob
I just come here for a bit of peace and quiet now and again.
Not even the spam makes its way here (although that may not be
true; I use new.individual.net, so most is pre-filtered from
all of my sub'd NGs.) :-)
--
Rob
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>On 18/08/2011 21:04, Johny B Good wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:42:26 +0100, Johny B Good
>><inv...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, couldn't resist testing for group deadness. Considering that
>>this NG replaces uk.comp.os.win2000 and uk.comp.os.win95 (and possibly
>>a few others istr), I'm surprised at how quickly group activity has
>>come to a virtual standstill since J.P. Gilliver (John)'s post last June.
>>
>> Over the last 3 or 4 years the use of usenet seems to be declining
>>at an alarming rate. A situation, no doubt, not helped by asset
>>Gilliver(John), just how many others remain subscribed to this NG?
>>
>
>I just come here for a bit of peace and quiet now and again.
>Not even the spam makes its way here (although that may not be
>true; I use new.individual.net, so most is pre-filtered from
>all of my sub'd NGs.) :-)
and Marcus Houlden - oh, and David Rance - seem to be it. Apart from
crossposts, I think.
(My spelling checker wants those to be Romford, Hauled, and Range ...)
(Another 'group that still seems to have a usable number of users is
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general - now more active than
m.p.wxp.newusers, I guess because there aren't many of the latter.)
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Lynsey.Doyle
> Since that was August ... you, me, Rob, Wm..., John Hall, Chris
> Holford, and Marcus Houlden - oh, and David Rance - seem to be it.
> Apart from crossposts, I think.