End of AFW?

NNTP is the protocol. "Usenet" is a historical vestige. 25 years ago, there was an actual Usenet that used the UUCP (Unix-to-Unix copy protocol) to connect computers in a store-and-foreward network (today's Internet is a packet-switched network). The original Usenet was subsumed by the Internet gradually during the late '80s/early '90s until only the newsgroups (aka netnews) remain today.

Every NNTP server carries a specified number of groups and each group has a particular retention time (the time an article remains on the server before it expires). Text groups like afw tend to have much longer retention times than binary groups like alt.binaries.

It should be noted, however, that many ISPs are abandoning Usenet service because of a perceived lack of demand. I am lucky in that my ISP hasn't yet made that fateful decision. However, for those whose ISPs have, there are both free and commercial NSPs (News service providers) like Giganews, Supernews, Teranews, Octanews and Usenet-server.com (all commercial). Free servers can be found using

Correction: Google bought Deja.com's Usenet archive. Deja was one of the original commercial Usenet archivers (from '94 or so) and Google augmented its archive by buying various private archives of Usenet going back to '83.

Agreed. Google's interface blows chunks IMHO.

Mark Lipton (posting using Mozilla Thunderbird through Insight's servers)

"Mark Lipton" in news:KL-dncMB6aAYJ3LZnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@insightbb.com :

Thanks Mark for that excellent and comprehensive summary. If I could amplify the following from experience of the above: "Usenet" is a distracting term (and therefore IMO, in Poe's words, "to be eschewed.") Mostly throughout its existence it has meant the newsgroups collectively, and that's all. It derives of course from Usenix (the old informal, volunteer Unix user's conference in the 1980s). "Usenet" tended to be used even as far back as the early 1980s to mean specifically the newsgroups. The UUCP protocol was its first large-scale corridor, and also a mode of email communication, but _from the beginning_ many users actually read email, and many sites got newsgroups, over the Internet itself ("ARPA Internet" early 1980s, "ARPAnet" before that). This happened more than was publicly acknowledged at the time.

Carriage of newsgroup traffic over the Internet _per se_ became openly the rule, and soon almost universal, after promulgation of the high-speed NNTP protocol in 1986 at the same time that the existing newsgroups were re-named after ponderous review into "rec.," soc.," "sci.," etc. Thus net.wines became rec.food.drink . (And mod.recipes, the archival moderated recipe newsgroup, could not retain its distinctive name. Hence B. Reid began the "Alt" newsgroups in order to reject the Great Renaming; alt.gourmand was the result, and the start of the "alt" groups.)

HTH -- Max

"JR" skrev i meddelandet news:EtKdnUQAJo8qM3LZnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com...

Since I have travelled the newsgroups somewhat, I have come to perceive the AFW as somewhat of a fairly safe haven compared to many others (notably the historic NGs, mirabiledictu). Trolls have been fairly few and far between. So is scamming. Sapmmers have been duely slammed and not returned. Who are the kooks we know, thosed who dislike them killfile them, others listen to what they say and disagree, politely, or with a certain flair.

The current attack has kept going, how long? Two months? I think Mike has spotted the attack long before I did, since he mentioned it in passing when we met during my vacations - I was first made aware of ti by the Joe-job on Beppe.

AS I have already made clear, I have very thick skin, these days. I'd rather stay and weather the situation. No doubt you are correct and whoever is airing his disgruntlement will tire and go away.

Cheers

Nils Gsutaf

mIKE , you are without doubt the person on this NG who knows me best. Still I must say that here I do not agree with you - it is not irrelevant to me. Call me stick in the m ud if you will (I know you won't!) but simply, HELL NO I will not be chased out by some 2 figure IQ, no doubt antisemite, who has managed to aquire to aptitude to press keys on a computer keyboard enough for to send coprophilic nonsense he no doubt has filched from alt.filth.obscenity.

This said, I must tell you taht losing your voice on this NG would be a very dire consequence indeed.

I stand with Dale and st. helier on this question.

Cheers

Nils Gustaf

I think you have a very healthy atitude Nils.

I would be very upset if someone used my identity on usenet. But I would be more upset if they subtley corrupted my views and opinions rather then posted filth which clearly does not come from me. I am sure that, if anyone cares, it will be clear that the rubbish posted in your name is nothing to do with you.

I will agree with Steve on this last point. Anyone using Google to search this group will likely be looking for wine-related information. Since I don't have much choice but to use Google Groups (nothing else will work on my office computer, which is connected to the web through a filtering program called St. Bernard), I will hunker down with the rest of the diehards, even if these numbskulls start using MY identity.

Dan-O (this too shall pass)