Test

"G.F." <nospam@grazie.it> wrote:

> Test

That is what the numerous *.test newsgroups are for.

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
> "G.F." <nospam@grazie.it> wrote:
>
> > Test
>
> That is what the numerous *.test newsgroups are for.

The poster is using Aioe.org, which limits posting on a per group
basis, so often the only way to test is posting to the desired group,
instead of to a test group.

Also note that after his test, he posted a regular article to this
group.

On 6/28/2021 11:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Also note that after his test, he posted a regular article to this
> group.

It may have been helpful to use the regular article posted as the
"test". Eternal September doesn't have any limitations as such, and
it's free -- just register.

Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/2021 11:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Also note that after his test, he posted a regular article to this
> > group.
>
> It may have been helpful to use the regular article posted as the
> "test".

Yes, that would have been better.

> Eternal September doesn't have any limitations as such, and
> it's free -- just register.

Many (most? all?) people who use Aioe.org, do so because it's fully
open, i.e. doesn't require registration or any other kind of USER/PASS.

The admins of such servers claim it's for privacy/anonimity/'free
speech', etc., but those are bogus arguments and they know it.

In the meantime, we (YTIW) cop the net-abuse - i.e. floods, etc. -
from such servers! :-(

On 6/28/2021 3:27 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> In the meantime, we (YTIW) cop the net-abuse - i.e. floods, etc. -
> from such servers!

A lot of people kill file those servers... I don't use any binary, and
my ISP dropped Usenet years ago, so Eternal September seems to be a
happy medium for me. If you're up to no good, then I suppose one like
AIOE would be your medium, unfortunately.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>
>> "G.F." <nospam@grazie.it> wrote:
>>
>>> Test
>>
>> That is what the numerous *.test newsgroups are for.
>
> The poster is using Aioe.org, which limits posting on a per group
> basis, so often the only way to test is posting to the desired group,
> instead of to a test group.

Even AIOE has their own test newsgroup (aioe.test); see:

https://news.aioe.org/manual/aioe-hierarchy/

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> Many (most? all?) people who use Aioe.org, do so because it's fully
> open, i.e. doesn't require registration or any other kind of USER/PASS.
>
> The admins of such servers claim it's for privacy/anonimity/'free
> speech', etc., but those are bogus arguments and they know it.
>
> In the meantime, we (YTIW) cop the net-abuse - i.e. floods, etc. -
> from such servers! :-(

*Un*registered NNTP server cannot enforce their so-called anti-abuse or
anti-spamming rules. They have no account to punish (by killing it and
forcing the [ab]user to create a new account - a small punishment but
something more than nothing). For unregistered NNTP providers, I
colorize posts from there to warn me about the potential abuses. For
quite a while, I also ignore-flagged any posts from AIOElians (and use a
default view of Hide Ignored Messages). After a couple years, the troll
count, forgers, peuriles, and spammers diminished from AIOE, so I
removed the ignore flagging, but still colorize posts from AIOE to warn
me of the crappy source.

Registering for an free account does NOT relinquish anonymity nor
privacy. If they don't abuse the provider's TOS then they need not
worry about their account getting killed. How many times do you put
your shoes on each day? Once when you get up and get dressed. Do you
whine about having to put on shoes each day? Any yet those defending
unregistered servers bitch about having to create an account *once*, and
having their NNTP client into their account which is automatic, anyway.

"G.F." <nospam@grazie.it> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:sbcasq$1g46$1@gioia.aioe.org...

Some clarifications about my message "Test":
- on 27 June my server (aioe) went crazy. I tried to send several messages
but I was constantly getting strange error messages
- tired of that, I sent several simple "Test" messages to assess the
situation, hoping the server returned to normal. The "Test" we see is the
last I sent successfully. Therefore, when the server seemed back to normal,
I sent the official message about W11
- I didn't expect my "Test" message to raise so much interest :-))) Were all
the replies necessary?

G.F. <nospam@grazie.it> wrote:
> "G.F." <nospam@grazie.it> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:sbcasq$1g46$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>
> Some clarifications about my message "Test":
> - on 27 June my server (aioe) went crazy. I tried to send several messages
> but I was constantly getting strange error messages
> - tired of that, I sent several simple "Test" messages to assess the
> situation, hoping the server returned to normal. The "Test" we see is the
> last I sent successfully. Therefore, when the server seemed back to normal,
> I sent the official message about W11
> - I didn't expect my "Test" message to raise so much interest :-))) Were all
> the replies necessary?

Yes, they were all neccessary! :-)

I think this famous quote is in order:

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea. Massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." - Gene
Spafford, 1992"

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Many (most? all?) people who use Aioe.org, do so because it's fully
> > open, i.e. doesn't require registration or any other kind of USER/PASS.
> >
> > The admins of such servers claim it's for privacy/anonimity/'free
> > speech', etc., but those are bogus arguments and they know it.
> >
> > In the meantime, we (YTIW) cop the net-abuse - i.e. floods, etc. -
> > from such servers! :-(
>
> *Un*registered NNTP server cannot enforce their so-called anti-abuse or
> anti-spamming rules. They have no account to punish (by killing it and
> forcing the [ab]user to create a new account - a small punishment but
> something more than nothing).

For many (most? (nearly) all?) "registering" implies providing some
personal information, like real name.

But that does not have to be the case. A News server can suffice with
a 'username' - which can be totally bogus/private/anonymous/<whatever>
and a user-provided password ('USER'/'PASS' in NNTP-speak). That's all!

But for some reason, the admins of such open servers can't be bothered
to implement such a basic anti-abuse mechanism.

[...]

> Registering for an free account does NOT relinquish anonymity nor
> privacy. If they don't abuse the provider's TOS then they need not
> worry about their account getting killed. How many times do you put
> your shoes on each day? Once when you get up and get dressed. Do you
> whine about having to put on shoes each day? Any yet those defending
> unregistered servers bitch about having to create an account *once*, and
> having their NNTP client into their account which is automatic, anyway.

+1

(and - normally - they also do not relinquish their beloved 'free speech')

Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/2021 3:27 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > In the meantime, we (YTIW) cop the net-abuse - i.e. floods, etc. -
> > from such servers!
>
> A lot of people kill file those servers... I don't use any binary, and
> my ISP dropped Usenet years ago, so Eternal September seems to be a
> happy medium for me. If you're up to no good, then I suppose one like
> AIOE would be your medium, unfortunately.

There are also several legitimate posters using Aioe.org, at least
IMO. So I do not want to filter Aioe.org, at least not completely.

Some time ago there were several floods - amongst others to
alt.comp.os.windows-10 - originating at Aioe.org by using a multitude of
IP addresses to circumvent their throttling mechanism. At that time, I
filtered Aioe.org in the abused group(s).

At the moment, I don't filter Aioe.org, but only filter specific
loons/jerks/creeps/<whatever> who use that server.

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
> >
> >> "G.F." <nospam@grazie.it> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Test
> >>
> >> That is what the numerous *.test newsgroups are for.
> >
> > The poster is using Aioe.org, which limits posting on a per group
> > basis, so often the only way to test is posting to the desired group,
> > instead of to a test group.
>
> Even AIOE has their own test newsgroup (aioe.test); see:
>
> https://news.aioe.org/manual/aioe-hierarchy/

Doesn't matter. Read what I wrote. If they don't allow posting to this
group (alt.windows7.general), no amount of posting/testing to aioe.test
is going to help.

Anyway, the issue is moot, because the OP can post to this group.

On 6/29/2021 11:09 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/28/2021 3:27 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> In the meantime, we (YTIW) cop the net-abuse - i.e. floods, etc. -
>>> from such servers!
>>
>> A lot of people kill file those servers... I don't use any binary, and
>> my ISP dropped Usenet years ago, so Eternal September seems to be a
>> happy medium for me. If you're up to no good, then I suppose one like
>> AIOE would be your medium, unfortunately.
>
> There are also several legitimate posters using Aioe.org, at least
> IMO. So I do not want to filter Aioe.org, at least not completely.
>
> Some time ago there were several floods - amongst others to
> alt.comp.os.windows-10 - originating at Aioe.org by using a multitude of
> IP addresses to circumvent their throttling mechanism. At that time, I
> filtered Aioe.org in the abused group(s).
>
> At the moment, I don't filter Aioe.org, but only filter specific
> loons/jerks/creeps/<whatever> who use that server.

I don't filter them either, but I've read enough others that do. I
remember that flood... also in alt.politics. I got frustrated after it
happened a couple of times and gave up on both groups.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:39:30 +0200, "G.F." <nospam@grazie.it> wrote:

>"G.F." <nospam@grazie.it> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:sbcasq$1g46$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>
>Some clarifications about my message "Test":
>- on 27 June my server (aioe) went crazy. I tried to send several messages
>but I was constantly getting strange error messages
>- tired of that, I sent several simple "Test" messages to assess the
>situation, hoping the server returned to normal. The "Test" we see is the
>last I sent successfully. Therefore, when the server seemed back to normal,
>I sent the official message about W11
>- I didn't expect my "Test" message to raise so much interest :-))) Were all
>the replies necessary?
>

I agree with you entirely. All one has to do is filter the word TEST
and that's the end of it. Usenet these days is pretty much comprised
of the whiners and troublemakers who couldn't make it in moderated Web
groups.

I have about 100 mbps download speed. So for me to use Agent's Global
Search as a filter after downloading all new messages takes no time at
all. That takes care of filtering the message headers, body - the
entire message, ending any filtering problem.

As far as filtering 'innocent' posters who use AIOE it's their
problem. Move over to Eternal Sept. I cannot understand people who
say they refuse to use the DEL function of filtering. I guess they
like bitching, moaning and whining.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:39:30 +0200
"G.F." <nospam@grazie.it> wrote:

> "G.F." <nospam@grazie.it> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:sbcasq$1g46$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>
> Some clarifications about my message "Test":
> - on 27 June my server (aioe) went crazy. I tried to send several
> messages but I was constantly getting strange error messages
> - tired of that, I sent several simple "Test" messages to assess the
> situation, hoping the server returned to normal. The "Test" we see is
> the last I sent successfully. Therefore, when the server seemed back
> to normal, I sent the official message about W11
> - I didn't expect my "Test" message to raise so much interest :-)))
> Were all the replies necessary?
>
>

No the weren't necessary, most normal people would just ignore it.