Where do you want to go tomorrow?

[Hector Santos]

John John - MVP wrote:



>

>

> Hector Santos wrote:

>> Ok, first, the microsoft.public.* newsgroups are not usenet.

>

> Gee, I wonder why Microsoft themselves refer to them as Usenet groups...

>

> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/guide/newsgroupfaq.mspx





Unfortunately, another case of Microsoft creating user confusion in

this regard.



Microsoft.public.* are *not* part of the usenet backbone newsgroup

listing nor backbone stream.



Check it out yourself. If you have access to a major ISP where you

have a high trunk line backwidth such as a T1 or T3, you will see that

the usenet feed newsgroup listing does not include microsoft.public.*



If a smaller ISP is showing microsoft.public.*, then they are directly

or indirectly going to Microsoft servers and are MERGING it with the

usenet listing. But they are two different sources of feeds.



>> #2, you won't have MS server to post, and if you found another, you

>> don't know if Google will be pulling from it or that your Serer will

>> be posting to GOOGLE.

>

> People post to the groups from all kinds of different servers, when the

> Microsoft servers are down these other servers still synchronize between

> themselves without any problem and these folks who post on other servers

> can still post and read without the intermediary of Microsoft servers.

> We have often seen this in the past when outages of a few hours or more

> at the Microsoft servers have happened and some of us use other servers

> to keep on posting, when the Microsoft servers come back only line they

> then "catch-up" and then all the posts show up many hours latter on

> these servers. This is obvious enough when you use non Microsoft

> servers to read the posts in Microsoft groups, all kinds of posts which

> have not made it to the MS servers, or posts which have been removed

> from the MS servers are on the other servers for all to see and read.



All that will change one MS pulls the plug from the wall.



While you might find another site that keeps the newsgroups and they

still remain relatively active, that is only because the site itself

have become the MAIN source for others to feed into - a large part of

the chain. But those chains that feed off Microsoft only are lost

unless they feed into someone else.



--

HLS

 

[Hector Santos]

LD5SZRA wrote:



> Most probably you won't be able to move to anywhere else not even

> on forums because Microsoft hasn't got any plans to open forums

> for Windows XP and earlier technology. Somebody suggested that

> you can go to other P2P newsgroups like Google or aioe.org. This

> again won't be possible because microsoft may force them to close

> their newsgroups bearing Micro$hit name.

>

> The only alternative I can think of is for somebody to organize a

> group of about 10 individuals to come together and start their own

> newsgroups to be financed by advertising and volunteers. I am

> willing to put my name forward for this project provided there are

> individuals who have some basic knowledge of hosting NNTPs which

> can be expanded further as time goes by. I am good at programming

> and developing websites using Java, Javascript and ASP and perhaps

> some networking skills and SQL servers. that is all I know at

> present.







Yes, I agree.



This would be a good idea but it starts with a new "main source" or

feed coordination. There will be a lot of nodes lost once the MS NNTP

servers are shut off and they need to be told who they can link up to.



How successful that all be, might be another thing.



You need a "ground zero" whether its one site or a group of sites as a

whole - they all need to know they can feed off each other. Once that

is established, then the rest of the world can feed of them.



That or someone at Microsoft "donates" the name sake

"microsoft.public.*" to the backbone usenet feed to it becomes part of

it the usenet listing.



The point?



When a NNTP client issues the command at any of the "New Feeds":



NEWSGROUP



the NNTP SERVER will show:



microsoft.public.*



as part of the result.



--

HLS

 

[Lem]

Hector Santos wrote:



>

> Check it out yourself. If you have access to a major ISP where you have

> a high trunk line backwidth such as a T1 or T3, you will see that the

> usenet feed newsgroup listing does not include microsoft.public.*

>

> If a smaller ISP is showing microsoft.public.*, then they are directly

> or indirectly going to Microsoft servers and are MERGING it with the

> usenet listing. But they are two different sources of feeds.

>





I have no expertise at all in newsgroup management, but just to inject a

fact into all of this speculation, Earthlink (which I would characterize

as a "major ISP") includes the microsoft.public.* groups on its news

servers. Whether it will continue to do so after Microsoft discontinues

its support for the newsgroups is, of course, is another story.

--

Lem



Apollo 11 - 40 years ago:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/40th/index.html

 

[John John - MVP]

Hector Santos wrote:

> John John - MVP wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> Hector Santos wrote:

>>> Ok, first, the microsoft.public.* newsgroups are not usenet.

>>

>> Gee, I wonder why Microsoft themselves refer to them as Usenet groups...

>>

>> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/guide/newsgroupfaq.mspx

>

>

> Unfortunately, another case of Microsoft creating user confusion in this

> regard.

>

> Microsoft.public.* are *not* part of the usenet backbone newsgroup

> listing nor backbone stream.

>

> Check it out yourself. If you have access to a major ISP where you have

> a high trunk line backwidth such as a T1 or T3, you will see that the

> usenet feed newsgroup listing does not include microsoft.public.*

>

> If a smaller ISP is showing microsoft.public.*, then they are directly

> or indirectly going to Microsoft servers and are MERGING it with the

> usenet listing. But they are two different sources of feeds.

>

>>> #2, you won't have MS server to post, and if you found another, you

>>> don't know if Google will be pulling from it or that your Serer will

>>> be posting to GOOGLE.

>>

>> People post to the groups from all kinds of different servers, when

>> the Microsoft servers are down these other servers still synchronize

>> between themselves without any problem and these folks who post on

>> other servers can still post and read without the intermediary of

>> Microsoft servers. We have often seen this in the past when outages of

>> a few hours or more at the Microsoft servers have happened and some of

>> us use other servers to keep on posting, when the Microsoft servers

>> come back only line they then "catch-up" and then all the posts show

>> up many hours latter on these servers. This is obvious enough when

>> you use non Microsoft servers to read the posts in Microsoft groups,

>> all kinds of posts which have not made it to the MS servers, or posts

>> which have been removed from the MS servers are on the other servers

>> for all to see and read.

>

> All that will change one MS pulls the plug from the wall.

>

> While you might find another site that keeps the newsgroups and they

> still remain relatively active, that is only because the site itself

> have become the MAIN source for others to feed into - a large part of

> the chain. But those chains that feed off Microsoft only are lost

> unless they feed into someone else.



The groups are on *many* usenet servers, majors like Giganews as well as

small guys like aioe carry them. If these guys refuse to honor the

remove group notices the groups will continue to exist on these servers

and peerage will continue between any and all who decide to keep on

carrying the groups. There is no denying that a majority of the posts

originates from the Microsoft servers and that without these servers the

groups may or will probably wither and die but the death will not be

because Microsoft servers are not there to act as a peerage "hub".



John

 

[Hector Santos]

John John - MVP wrote:



> Hector Santos wrote:

>> John John - MVP wrote:

>>

>> All that will change one MS pulls the plug from the wall.

>>

>> While you might find another site that keeps the newsgroups and they

>> still remain relatively active, that is only because the site itself

>> have become the MAIN source for others to feed into - a large part of

>> the chain. But those chains that feed off Microsoft only are lost

>> unless they feed into someone else.

>

> The groups are on *many* usenet servers, majors like Giganews as well as

> small guys like aioe carry them. If these guys refuse to honor the

> remove group notices the groups will continue to exist on these servers

> and peerage will continue between any and all who decide to keep on

> carrying the groups. There is no denying that a majority of the posts

> originates from the Microsoft servers and that without these servers the

> groups may or will probably wither and die but the death will not be

> because Microsoft servers are not there to act as a peerage "hub".



Right, the death will be relative to the users of where they decide to

reconnect.



The fact is that many sites and end users use msnews.microsoft.com as

their site feed and now they will need to go to other sites. The

issue is that those other sites might also had been using Microsoft.



So sure, they will need to change to new site so that a link won't be

broken. As long as there remain a common list of newsgroups

available, and it includes microsoft.*, its all good as far as getting

it going.



--

HLS

 

[Hector Santos]

Just wish to note the actually Live ID authentication process is

internally done over SSL.



Hector Santos wrote:



> Yes, I did noticed that, and AFAICT, the REST requests are all HTTP.

>

> Note: the correct url is:

> http://services.social.microsoft.com/forumsServicePreview/ForumsService.svc

>

> This is a primitive 3rd party program. The author seems to be new at

> communications requirements. It uses the Live ID Framework Client SDK

> for this.

>

> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb404791.aspx

>

> And it comes with a C# example illustrating the authentication.

>

> For me, since my live id account is a junk account anyway, I don't worry

> about it - although they are beginning to force me to use it more now.

>







--

HLS

 

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

There are rumors that Microsoft plans to shut down this nntp server.







Ahem!

 

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

Gee, I wonder why Microsoft themselves refer to them as Usenet groups...







This is, as Hector correctly told us, "Microsoft's Usenet"







No.

 

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

I share concerns expressed by Hector Santos, [...]







You shouldn't.

 

[Hector Santos]

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:



>

>>

>> There are rumors that Microsoft plans to shut down this nntp server.

>>

> Ahem! "This NNTP server" is a phrase that means different things to

> different people. This is Usenet, remember. There /isn't/ just one

> node. There are thousands of them. Microsoft has no plans to shut down

> /my/ Usenet node, which carries this and several other newsgroups in the

> |microsoft.*| hierarchy. It couldn't do so even if it wanted to. It's

> my node, not Microsoft's.

>





But no one is going to connect to a Troll's node.



--

HLS

 

[Hector Santos]

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:



>> If we can continue to use newsreaders rather than web interface (with

>> all due respect to AJAX....) and still conect to the central MS

>> server, then this bridge indeed looks like a good solution for me.

>>

> You're still making the fundamental mistake of thinking that there's a

> "central server". Ignore the Sanotosisms. Xyr description of what

> happens is wrong on about six or seven different counts. Listen to

> Jochen Kalmbach. Xe has far more clue, here. Here's some irony for

> you: If you did what M. Santos said to do and went to your ISP and

> looked, you'll probably find that (presuming that it actually runs a

> Usenet node at all, of course) your ISP does, indeed, carry the entire

> |microsoft.*| newsgroup hierarchy, and you could have obtained it from

> your ISP's Usenet node all along.





Ahh, hence the erroneous presumption that every node carries the

entire usenet feed. WRONG!



Again the TROLL is missing the point.



Once the MS NNTP Server goes down, its chain of nodes including

end-users will no longer get its exchange of microsoft.* only mail.

They have to go else where and thats a MAJOR lost of information and

users and active user support people.



PS: There is one good thing about the MS Forums! No more trolls such

as the Jonathans - which I am sure you won't mind as you won't be able

to handle anything you can't cross post all over the place.



--

HLS

 

[Hector Santos]

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:



>

>>>

>>> Gee, I wonder why Microsoft themselves refer to them as Usenet groups...

>>>

>> This is, as Hector correctly told us, "Microsoft's Usenet"

>>

> No. It's just Usenet. It's a |microsoft.*| hierarchy of newsgroups,

> but that doesn't make it owned, or run, by Microsoft. Much of what M.

> Santos is writing in this thread about star networks, hubs, "backbone

> listings", and so forth is just complete unadulterated twaddle. The

> statements about "owners of newsgroups" are more of the same, alas.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet



Looks like a star topology



Microsoft "owns" the microsoft.* groups. Whether they wish keep it

listed on the backbone listing, its up to them and yes, there is a

"administrator" that issues controls.



> Of course, the fact that this is Usenet is almost certainly part of the

> problem for Microsoft. It has no control.





Not true, they can ask to get it remove. If they don't others have

the power (IETF, ISC.ORG) to remove it from the listing.



That doesn't mean other usenet feed sites has to honor a change

request or new listing. Thats up to them. But if they want to be in

sync with the rest of the feeds, they will work with the new listing.



As Russ Allbery clearly stated here in response to Julien's plan to

have the microsoft.* newsgroups remove from the usenet BACKBONE listing:



http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.news.server/msg/6cf4bbc6284d92a3



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.



Look at the word *synchronized with Microsoft" - study what it means.



As soon as MS pulls the plug, Julien plans to remove the groups from

the listings.



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.







--

HLS

 

[John John - MVP]

Hector Santos wrote:

> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:

>

>>

>>>>

>>>> Gee, I wonder why Microsoft themselves refer to them as Usenet

>>>> groups...

>>>>

>>> This is, as Hector correctly told us, "Microsoft's Usenet"

>>>

>> No. It's just Usenet. It's a |microsoft.*| hierarchy of newsgroups,

>> but that doesn't make it owned, or run, by Microsoft. Much of what M.

>> Santos is writing in this thread about star networks, hubs, "backbone

>> listings", and so forth is just complete unadulterated twaddle. The

>> statements about "owners of newsgroups" are more of the same, alas.

>

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

>

> Looks like a star topology



How can you look at a portion of the network, a partial sketch of 3

servers amongst thousands, and declare this to be a star network? Maybe

you should have read instead of just looking at pictures:



"One notable difference between a BBS or web forum and Usenet is the

absence of a central server and dedicated administrator. Usenet is

distributed among a large, constantly changing conglomeration of servers

that store and forward messages to one another. These servers are

loosely connected in a variable mesh. This is similar to the complex

transportation plan of a city. There are multiple ways to get to any

point in the city. If one of those ways is blocked for some reason,

there is always another avenue available to get there. In this manner,

the User Network or Usenet allows newsgroup postings to reach their many

destinations robustly."



This is what a star network looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_network



It is completely unsuitable for Usenet robustness, as mentioned in the

article:



"The primary disadvantage of a star topology is the high dependence of

the system on the functioning of the central hub. While the failure of

an individual link only results in the isolation of a single node, the

failure of the central hub renders the network inoperable, immediately

isolating all nodes. The performance and scalability of the network also

depend on the capabilities of the hub."



>

> Microsoft "owns" the microsoft.* groups. Whether they wish keep it

> listed on the backbone listing, its up to them and yes, there is a

> "administrator" that issues controls.

>

>> Of course, the fact that this is Usenet is almost certainly part of

>> the problem for Microsoft. It has no control.

>

>

> Not true, they can ask to get it remove. If they don't others have the

> power (IETF, ISC.ORG) to remove it from the listing.



IETF? ISC.ORG? Do you even know what are the missions and mandates of

these organizations? Here is a hint, it has to do with protocols and

technical aspects of Usenet/Internet traffic, they don't have any powers

whatsoever to force anyone to do anything and they certainly wouldn't

get involved in any squabbles between individuals or entities about

newsgroups!



John

 

[Hector Santos]

John John - MVP wrote:



> Hector Santos wrote:



>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

>>

>> Looks like a star topology

>

> How can you look at a portion of the network, a partial sketch of 3

> servers amongst thousands, and declare this to be a star network? Maybe

> you should have read instead of just looking at pictures:





As I stated in the beginning of your onslaught:



A mesh is just a form of a star network.



And I further added:



Now, in a mesh, redundancy may be part of the expectation with

duplicity considered a lower overhead operation then it was in

older days where hardware did not allow for such low efficiency

however it still needed to be checked.



But you probably don't know what that means.



>>> Of course, the fact that this is Usenet is almost certainly part of

>>> the problem for Microsoft. It has no control.

>>

>> Not true, they can ask to get it remove. If they don't others have

>> the power (IETF, ISC.ORG) to remove it from the listing.

>

> IETF? ISC.ORG? Do you even know what are the missions and mandates of

> these organizations? Here is a hint, it has to do with protocols and

> technical aspects of Usenet/Internet traffic, they don't have any powers

> whatsoever to force anyone to do anything





HA! well, you don't seem to be have been involved much around the

IETF then!



> and they certainly wouldn't get involved in any squabbles between



> individuals or entities about newsgroups!



You are right, they will do want they want. They don't need to explain

anything to you.



Go get your current usenet listing at:



ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/newsgroups



And see if you can POLITELY ask to manage it yourself.



http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.news.server/msg/6cf4bbc6284d92a3



But you are certainly welcome to maintain your own list and share it

among your network of friends who know about you.



If there is one thing about the old guards, including the old Fidonet,

they LOVE to maintain LIST. Oh its FREE - now go try to take control

of it.



--

HLS

 

[Hector Santos]

John John - MVP wrote:



> Hector Santos wrote:





>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

>>

>> Looks like a star topology

>

> How can you look at a portion of the network, a partial sketch of 3

> servers amongst thousands, and declare this to be a star network? Maybe

> you should have read instead of just looking at pictures:

>

> "One notable difference between a BBS or web forum and Usenet is the

> absence of a central server and dedicated administrator. Usenet is

> distributed among a large, constantly changing conglomeration of servers

> that store and forward messages to one another. These servers are

> loosely connected in a variable mesh. This is similar to the complex

> transportation plan of a city. There are multiple ways to get to any

> point in the city. If one of those ways is blocked for some reason,

> there is always another avenue available to get there. In this manner,

> the User Network or Usenet allows newsgroup postings to reach their many

> destinations robustly."

>

> This is what a star network looks like:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_network

>

> It is completely unsuitable for Usenet robustness, as mentioned in the

> article:

>

> "The primary disadvantage of a star topology is the high dependence of

> the system on the functioning of the central hub. While the failure of

> an individual link only results in the isolation of a single node, the

> failure of the central hub renders the network inoperable, immediately

> isolating all nodes. The performance and scalability of the network also

> depend on the capabilities of the hub."







Whats funny about this is that you really don't know what it means

because you probably never operated or hosted a server.



I'll try to explain it to you:



Its relative - think of yourself as a HOST operator.



When you first install whatever hosting software you have, it begins

EMPTY!



Now YOU, as a HUMAN have to decide where you will get your feeds for

whatever information you wish to provide for your users and/or LOCALLY

HOSTED host operator.



Old school operators will understand terms like users as POINTS



HOST-JOHN USER-A



The key point is that the USER is not hosting anyone else. But maybe

you are going to like to host other sites, free or fee or whatever:



HOST-JOHN USER-A

|

HOST-BIZ-CUSTOMER



Relative to USER-A and the BIZ customer, YOUR are their HUB and its an

the form of a STAR.



In the old days, it was more of a locality, distance issue simply

because of the networking. But the internet allows you to go to other

HUBs now who offer the same feeds that you wanted.



There are MANY reasons, seriously, why users and nodes go to different

sources or multiple different sources.



Assuming you have access to anyone you are working with, its possible

to download form one host and upload to another. Its akin to reading

on this server and for some reason, you decide to post a reply via

google or some other site.



But keep in mind that USER and a HOST are different when it comes to

redundancy and duplicity.



If a HOST is going to go different multiple HOST for the same feeds,

the NNTP protocol has logic to check for dupes.



The point is today, you don't even think about it anymore. The

hardware, the bandwidth and software are that good to completely

automated it. It is still overhead, but its not something that was a

BIG BIG concern in the past where FEEDS are large and expensive. The

dupes where still there but if there was a real big issue, someone

traced it down to the problem node.



Lets put it this way, if you became an ISP - you will think STAR

network relative to yourself you will sell services to NODES off your

hub - users and other hosting sites. You normally will not have any

control what this nodes will do themselves, but if one of your nodes

where getting duplicate feeds from someone else, and you UPLOADED it

to the hub, do you think they will accept it?



--

HLS

 

[John John - MVP]

Hector Santos wrote:

> John John - MVP wrote:

>

>> Hector Santos wrote:

>

>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

>>>

>>> Looks like a star topology

>>

>> How can you look at a portion of the network, a partial sketch of 3

>> servers amongst thousands, and declare this to be a star network?

>> Maybe you should have read instead of just looking at pictures:

>

>

> As I stated in the beginning of your onslaught:

>

> A mesh is just a form of a star network.



Sheesh, now you are trying to backpeddle! Read here:

http://www.myreader.co.uk/msg/12534.aspx



"Although the UK Network may once have been a star network, this is no

longer the case. There are many news servers each of which has multiple

connections to others forming a mesh-like network. There are no central

sites in a position to control what comes in and out of the network as a

whole."



It's the same thing worldwide, trying to imply that the Usenet is a star

network in an effort to bolster your claim that the MS servers are a

mandatory and necessary "hub" in the distribution of the microsoft.*

hierarchy is lame to say the least!



I'm done with this thread, good bye!



John

 

[Hector Santos]

John John - MVP wrote:



> Hector Santos wrote:

>> John John - MVP wrote:

>>

>>> Hector Santos wrote:

>>

>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

>>>>

>>>> Looks like a star topology

>>>

>>> How can you look at a portion of the network, a partial sketch of 3

>>> servers amongst thousands, and declare this to be a star network?

>>> Maybe you should have read instead of just looking at pictures:

>>

>>

>> As I stated in the beginning of your onslaught:

>>

>> A mesh is just a form of a star network.

>

> Sheesh, now you are trying to backpeddle! Read here:

> http://www.myreader.co.uk/msg/12534.aspx

>

> "Although the UK Network may once have been a star network, this is no

> longer the case. There are many news servers each of which has multiple

> connections to others forming a mesh-like network. There are no central

> sites in a position to control what comes in and out of the network as a

> whole."

>

> It's the same thing worldwide, trying to imply that the Usenet is a star

> network in an effort to bolster your claim that the MS servers are a

> mandatory and necessary "hub" in the distribution of the microsoft.*

> hierarchy is lame to say the least!

>

> I'm done with this thread, good bye!



You're right, you should because you twisted words to suit whatever

purpose you had here.



To indicate that me referencing a picture of "three" nodes in a usenet

network is not representative of the "thousands" of nodes in the

network is ludicrous and a lame attempt of trolling for an nonsense

argument.



The above does not change the fact that a node relative to itself

operates like a star and as I stated in my last post, you have no

control of what your nodes and points off your server will do. In

other words, you don't need to go to a main hub to get your feeds.

That still doesn't eliminate the idea each node itself operates as a star.



What? You think you can just post in UK node and it will magically

appear in some far distance USA node without some form of organized

uplink/downlink transport system? Are you broadcasting by posting the

article at different servers crossing your fingers that at least ONE

will make and the others will by rejected as DUPES?



And again, unless you UNDERSTAND the intricacies of developing hosting

software especially for all hosting operationally needs when it comes

to distribution, then yes, you should say good bye and shut up.



--

HLS

 

[Paul Attryde]

Pavel A. wrote:

> Dear users of msnews.microsoft.com,

>

> There are rumors that Microsoft plans to shut down this nntp server.

>

> See this for example:

> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20004109-56.html

>

> Any thoughts on where we can migrate from here - besides of the

> web-based MSDN forums?.

> To Google groups, maybe?



Personally I signed up for an account at OSROnline. They

have an NNTP version of their mailing lists at lists.osr.com



hth somebody,

Paul

 

[Marianne]

Hector Santos" wrote in message

news:O9Ix9Lr7KHA.5808@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> John John - MVP wrote:

>

>> Hector Santos wrote:

>>> John John - MVP wrote:

>>>

>>>> Hector Santos wrote:

>>>

>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

>>>>>

>>>>> Looks like a star topology

>>>>

>>>> How can you look at a portion of the network, a partial sketch of 3

>>>> servers amongst thousands, and declare this to be a star network?

>>>> Maybe you should have read instead of just looking at pictures:

>>>

>>>

>>> As I stated in the beginning of your onslaught:

>>>

>>> A mesh is just a form of a star network.

>>

>> Sheesh, now you are trying to backpeddle! Read here:

>> http://www.myreader.co.uk/msg/12534.aspx

>>

>> "Although the UK Network may once have been a star network, this is no

>> longer the case. There are many news servers each of which has multiple

>> connections to others forming a mesh-like network. There are no central

>> sites in a position to control what comes in and out of the network as a

>> whole."

>>

>> It's the same thing worldwide, trying to imply that the Usenet is a star

>> network in an effort to bolster your claim that the MS servers are a

>> mandatory and necessary "hub" in the distribution of the microsoft.*

>> hierarchy is lame to say the least!

>>

>> I'm done with this thread, good bye!

>

> You're right, you should because you twisted words to suit whatever

> purpose you had here.

>

> To indicate that me referencing a picture of "three" nodes in a usenet

> network is not representative of the "thousands" of nodes in the network

> is ludicrous and a lame attempt of trolling for an nonsense argument.

>

> The above does not change the fact that a node relative to itself operates

> like a star and as I stated in my last post, you have no control of what

> your nodes and points off your server will do. In other words, you don't

> need to go to a main hub to get your feeds.

> That still doesn't eliminate the idea each node itself operates as a star.

>

> What? You think you can just post in UK node and it will magically appear

> in some far distance USA node without some form of organized

> uplink/downlink transport system? Are you broadcasting by posting the

> article at different servers crossing your fingers that at least ONE will

> make and the others will by rejected as DUPES?

>

> And again, unless you UNDERSTAND the intricacies of developing hosting

> software especially for all hosting operationally needs when it comes to

> distribution, then yes, you should say good bye and shut up.



And you sell nntp software? For the sake of your customers I hope that your

tech support knows more about newsgroups than you do because you don't know

wtf you are talking about! Anyone reading this thread will see that you

haven't got a clue and they will surely pass on your software offering!

You've indentified yourself as working for a certain company any you have

posted links to your company in this thread, by doing so you have attached

your company to the discussion. After reading this thread and seeing how

you completely misunderstand Usenet I can say without any hesitation that I

would never purchase your software! Nice job you clueless moron!



M

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

> Personally I signed up for an account at OSROnline. They

> have an NNTP version of their mailing lists at lists.osr.com



This is what I'm using for 8 years or so.



--

Maxim S. Shatskih

Windows DDK MVP

maxim@storagecraft.com

http://www.storagecraft.com