From Newsgroup: alt.config

On 2024-12-12, William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[...]

you and your socks may create as many spamtraps
as you like.

Spam?
The spam left when google did.

Some newsgroups contain post and spam.

Some newsgroups contian only spam.

You propose a newsgroup that won't even contain spam.

I have to admit, the idea has the merit of originality.

But forging a mailbox at innocent.com lacks even that merit.
--
PJR :-)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.config

On 2024-10-11, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> writes:

Although now that I look, comp.infosystems.* is a thing, but >>>alt.comp.infosystems.* is not. Proposed alt.* groups shouldn't be named >>>to skip a hierarchy level.

Is such rule written somewhere?

There it is, written.

I agree with the rule as written, which makes it unanimous among all
surviving alt.configgers who have any plausible claim to be taken
seriously. And the threshhold for being taken seriously here is loooow!

Any newsgroup you newgroup will be useless at best, harmful at worst.
Why not enjoy participating in existing newsgroups instead?
--
PJR :-)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.config

Peter J Ross wrote:

On 2024-12-12, William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[...]

you and your socks may create as many spamtraps
as you like.

Spam?
The spam left when google did.

Some newsgroups contain post and spam.

Some newsgroups contian only spam.

You propose a newsgroup that won't even contain spam.

I didn't propose any newsgroup.

I have to admit, the idea has the merit of originality.

But forging a mailbox at innocent.com lacks even that merit.

Email me, it's a valid addy. I'll reply.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.config

Peter J Ross wrote:

On 2024-10-11, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> writes:

Although now that I look, comp.infosystems.* is a thing, but >>>alt.comp.infosystems.* is not. Proposed alt.* groups shouldn't be named >>>to skip a hierarchy level.

Is such rule written somewhere?

There it is, written.

I agree with the rule as written, which makes it unanimous among all surviving alt.configgers who have any plausible claim to be taken
seriously. And the threshhold for being taken seriously here is loooow!

Any newsgroup you newgroup will be useless at best, harmful at worst.
Why not enjoy participating in existing newsgroups instead?

Funny.
Did you happen to notice the result of the recent UK Usenet Committee Election? Or this <https://individual.net/>?
Most sane usenetters have fucked off, leaving only a few diehard participants and a shit load of nutters that have no where else to go.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.config

On 2025-12-20, William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:

Peter J Ross wrote:

On 2024-12-12, William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[...]

you and your socks may create as many spamtraps
as you like.

Spam?
The spam left when google did.

Some newsgroups contain post and spam.

Some newsgroups contian only spam.

You propose a newsgroup that won't even contain spam.

I didn't propose any newsgroup.

I have to admit, the idea has the merit of originality.

But forging a mailbox at innocent.com lacks even that merit.

Email me, it's a valid addy. I'll reply.

My mother taught me not to exchange emails with strange men.

But I'll take your word for it. In today's Usenet, shooting first and
asking questions later is the best policy nine times out of ten.
Apologies for the friendly fire incident.
--
PJR :-)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.config

On 2025-12-20, William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:

Peter J Ross wrote:

On 2024-10-11, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> writes:

Although now that I look, comp.infosystems.* is a thing, but
alt.comp.infosystems.* is not. Proposed alt.* groups shouldn't be named >> >>>to skip a hierarchy level.

Is such rule written somewhere?

There it is, written.

I agree with the rule as written, which makes it unanimous among all
surviving alt.configgers who have any plausible claim to be taken
seriously. And the threshhold for being taken seriously here is loooow!

Any newsgroup you newgroup will be useless at best, harmful at worst.
Why not enjoy participating in existing newsgroups instead?

Funny.

Graveyard humour at its best, eh?

Did you happen to notice the result of the recent UK Usenet Committee Election?

No, but I can guess that there was a shortage of both candidates and
voters.

Or this <https://individual.net/>?

As an intermittent user of their server for twenty-five years, how could
I not have noticed? But I was shocked, because I thought that the
experience of running a news server would be useful for students even if
there were almost no users. Grappling with INN is like grappling with
Fortran: useless but instructive.

Most sane usenetters have fucked off, leaving only a few diehard
participants and a shit load of nutters that have no where else to go.

This is my second visit to Usenet this year, after a gap of two years.
Within two days, I'm already tiring of making fun of the nutters, so I
may be gone for good soon.

But it was bloody good fun while it lasted!
--
PJR :-)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2