Re: Microsoft is planning on phasing out newsgroups
Julien ÉLIE
> Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Communities
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/default.mspx
>
> Beginning in June 2010, Microsoft will begin closing newsgroups and
> migrating users to Microsoft forums that include Microsoft Answers,
> TechNet and MSDN. This move will centralize content, make it easier for
> contributors to retain their influence, reduce redundancies and make
> content easier to find. Overall, forums offer a better spam management
> platform that will improve customer satisfaction by encouraging a
> healthy discussion space.
I just wanted to let you know that I will issue rmgroup control articles,
reflecting the changes that are bound to happen on msnews.microsoft.com,
when they occur.
Therefore, if you want to go on carrying these Microsoft newsgroups,
you should not honour my PGP key:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=MICROSOFT
Note that a lot of microsoft.public.* is already obsolete and unused.
If somebody else wants to handle the microsoft.* hierarchy in a different
way, he should create a PGP key, communicate it and begin sending
newgroup/checkgroups messages to keep the hierarchy alive.
--
Julien �LIE
� Ne craignez pas d'�tre lent, craignez seulement d'�tre � l'arr�t. �
Adam H. Kerman
>Following a thread on news.admin.misc:
>>Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Communities
>>http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/default.mspx
>>Beginning in June 2010, Microsoft will begin closing newsgroups and
>>migrating users to Microsoft forums that include Microsoft Answers,
>>TechNet and MSDN. This move will centralize content, make it easier for
>>contributors to retain their influence, reduce redundancies and make
>>content easier to find. Overall, forums offer a better spam management
>>platform that will improve customer satisfaction by encouraging a
>>healthy discussion space.
>I just wanted to let you know that I will issue rmgroup control articles,
>reflecting the changes that are bound to happen on msnews.microsoft.com,
>when they occur.
I don't think you should issue rmgroups. Just issue a final checkgroups
reflecting whatever the final set of newsgroups is before Microsoft
purges them with a note of lengthy explanation of Microsoft's official
shut down of its newsserver.
You were never the hierarchy administrator. You were doing this as a favor
to News administrators who created these groups apparently on behalf of
users who didn't care to use multiple News servers. What everybody has
been doing all along has been "unofficial".
So who needs notice of nonrecognition of these newsgroups given that it's
unofficial? You see how that doesn't make any sense?
What your rmgroup messages will do is purge articles from the spool of
anyone who honors your rmgroup messages, not realizing that they have to
stop recognizing your "authority" if they wish to retain the newsgroups.
If a News administrator wishes to withdraw the hierarchy entirely because
Microsoft took down its News server, well, he doesn't need your rmgroup
messages to do that.
Please don't do this.
News Guy
> I just wanted to let you know that I will issue rmgroup control
> articles, reflecting the changes that are bound to happen on
> msnews.microsoft.com, when they occur.
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
> I don't think you should issue rmgroups.
>
> Please don't do this.
I've been having this argument with Elie for more than a year, asking
why he thinks he has the authority to be some sort of remote
administrator for Microsoft's usenet presence.
I think it's because he gets off performing this self-appointed role,
and the only think he *can* do is issue RM group messages because
microsoft has not created any new groups for years.
There is no reason why the microsoft.public hirearchy can't continue to
exist on usenet regardless if Microsoft no longer operates a usenet
server. Those that post and read to those groups using Microsoft's
server can switch to alternate servers and should be allowed the
opportunity to do so.
There are many groups in the microsoft.public hierarchy that don't exist
in the comp or alt hierarchies and there is no effort to duplicate them
now (ahead of microsoft terminating their server) and there is
absolutely no need to do so when the simple answer is to just keep those
groups as-is.
Adam H. Kerman
>I've been having this argument with Elie for more than a year, asking
>why he thinks he has the authority to be some sort of remote
>administrator for Microsoft's usenet presence. . . .
Sigh.
Russ Allbery
> I just wanted to let you know that I will issue rmgroup control articles,
> reflecting the changes that are bound to happen on msnews.microsoft.com,
> when they occur.
> Therefore, if you want to go on carrying these Microsoft newsgroups,
> you should not honour my PGP key:
> http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=MICROSOFT
> Note that a lot of microsoft.public.* is already obsolete and unused.
Thanks. For all the reasons previously discussed, I think this is the
right move. The whole point of that hierarchy was that it was
synchronized with Microsoft; without that point, there are lots of other
hierarchies that can absorb the traffic, and without spreading it across
way more groups than the residual traffic is likely to require.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Tim Skirvin
> I just wanted to let you know that I will issue rmgroup control articles,
> reflecting the changes that are bound to happen on msnews.microsoft.com,
> when they occur.
Thanks for this.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/ Skirv's Projects
News Guy
> The whole point of that hierarchy was that it was synchronized with
> Microsoft;
What exactly does that mean?
Generally speaking, usenet servers are syncronized with each other.
That's how usenet works.
> there are lots of other hierarchies that can absorb the traffic,
Why don't you start issuing the group-create messages in those
hierarchies then.
Tim Skirvin
>> there are lots of other hierarchies that can absorb the traffic,
> Why don't you start issuing the group-create messages in those
> hierarchies then.
Come on over to news.groups.proposals; I suspect we could
fast-track a bunch of comp.* groups.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Wiki <FISH>< <*>
Julien ÉLIE
> I've been having this argument with Elie for more than a year, asking
> why he thinks he has the authority to be some sort of remote
> administrator for Microsoft's usenet presence.
The "authority" is msnews.microsoft.com, not me.
Already discussed for more than a year. As well as why there are quotes
around "authority" for a hierarchy.
> I think it's because he gets off performing this self-appointed role,
> and the only think he *can* do is issue RM group messages
You think wrongly.
--
Julien �LIE
� Vois-tu gar�on, il faut battre le fer quand il est... ch...
D'ailleurs, en r�gle g�n�rale, il faut tout battre
avant que �a ne refroidisse ! � (C�tautomatix)
Thomas Lee
wrote:
> I just wanted to let you know that I will issue rmgroup control articles,
> reflecting the changes that are bound to happen on msnews.microsoft.com,
> when they occur.
>
> Therefore, if you want to go on carrying these Microsoft newsgroups,
> you should not honour my PGP key:
> http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=MICROSOFT
>
> Note that a lot of microsoft.public.* is already obsolete and unused.
>
> If somebody else wants to handle the microsoft.* hierarchy in a different
> way, he should create a PGP key, communicate it and begin sending
> newgroup/checkgroups messages to keep the hierarchy alive.
>
If you are a Microsoft employee, then go ahead. But unless you are
talking per et pro Microsoft Corporation, I'd regard you issuing 3rd
party rmgroups to be abuse of the net. Seems to me that such abuse
would be actionable.
MEB.peoplescounsel
> On May 5, 8:22 pm, Julien �LIE <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid>
I would suggest you refer to misc.legal.moderated for a present
discussion regarding Usenet and services and/or hosts supposed authority
regarding the Microsoft hierarchy. Should you need more or wish to
proceed on your own then start here:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1996/apr96/nwsgrppr.mspx
for the specifics of authorizations, where the authorized service is
located, and additional legal aspects and direction. And here:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start
and additional as might apply regarding hosting, listing, and service
responsibilities in relationship to Usenet, services, and hosts carrying
and/or offering Microsoft's groups; wherein per the guidelines and other
applicable established, it appears you shouldn't complain this is being
done, you should compliment the party for doing so; unless you
personally intend to keep track of this responsibility yourself and
comply with the requirements and guidelines established, and applicable
Laws, both U.S. and international; taking additional note of applicable
Free Trade Agreements, U.N. Treaties and agreements, and other
applicable as they might apply.
John F. Morse
Thomas Lee wrote:
> On May 5, 8:22 pm, Julien �LIE <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid>
Who do you think cares what you think?
As Julien stated, if a news server administrator doesn't want the groups
removed, he/she can simply not honor the rmgroup control messages.
If they do want them removed, then they allow those control messages.
It is up to the administrator, who in most all cases, is also the owner
of the news server(s).
You aren't.
--
John
When a person has -- whether they knew it or not -- already rejected the Truth, by what means do they discern a lie?