From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Hi all,

Following a recent discussion here about a possible rationalization and consolidation of newsgroups, why not discuss it for news.* first?

I would propose to keep the following newsgroups which are still
relevant and/or active:

news.admin.announce Announcements for news administrators. (Moderated) news.admin.hierarchies Network news hierarchies.
news.admin.misc General topics of network news administration. news.admin.net-abuse.email Discussion of abuse of email systems. news.admin.net-abuse.usenet Discussion of abuse of the Usenet system. news.admin.peering Article flow, server peering requests, & offers. news.announce.newgroups Calls for newgroups & announcements of same. (Moderated)
news.answers Repository for periodic USENET articles. (Moderated) news.groups Discussions and lists of newsgroups. news.groups.proposals Development of Big 8 proposals. (Moderated) news.lists.filters Notices for automated news filtering systems. news.lists.misc News-related statistics and lists. (Moderated) news.software.nn Discussion about the "nn" Usenet news reader package. news.software.nntp The Network News Transfer Protocol. news.software.readers Discussing software for reading network news (Usenet).


It means removing:

news.admin.moderation Technical and social issues of newsgroup
moderation. (Moderated)
news.announce.important General announcements of interest to all.
(Moderated)
news.announce.newusers Explanatory postings for new users. (Moderated) news.admin.censorship Censorship issues in news administration. news.admin.net-abuse.misc Network facility abuse, including spamming. news.admin.technical Technical aspects of maintaining network news. (Moderated)
news.groups.questions Where can I find talk about topic X?
news.misc Discussions of USENET itself.
news.newusers.questions Q & A for new users of Usenet. (Moderated) news.software.b Discussion about Usenet B-news-compatible software. news.software.misc Usenet-related software other than readers and servers.

Discussions or useful contents no longer actually take place in these
groups. Yes I know news.software.misc could be the place to discuss for instance about Cleanfeed/Pyclean but the fact is that news.software.nntp
is widely used for that. Maybe we could even change the description of news.software.nntp to reflect its de facto current usage, broader than
the NNTP protocol? I really doubt its usage would change any time soon!

I also suggest the removal of news.announce.newusers and news.newusers.questions as I don't believe new users will subscribe to
these newsgroups nor take the time to read the 3 periodic messages
posted there. They could be posted to for instance news.groups instead.

Finally, I would also propose to remove news.admin.moderation (as news.admin.misc or news.software.nntp could be used) and
news.groups.questions (as news.groups may be appropriated; its
description could then be changed to for instance "Any question or
discussion about newsgroups." or whatever better wording).



Feel free to share your thoughts about that proposal.

NB: Foreseeing discussions about a possible loss of messages, I would
like to recall that news servers intended to keep historical contents do
not honour removal of newsgroups, so the history of Usenet and old
messages are not affected by the rationalization of the list of
newsgroups in archival servers.
--
Julien |eLIE

-2-aLa libertad, Sancho, es uno de los m|is preciosos dones que a los
hombres dieron los cielos; con ella no pueden igualarse los tesoros
que encierran la tierra y el mar: por la libertad, as|! como por la
honra, se puede y debe aventurar la vida.-a-+ (Miguel de Cervantes
Saavedra)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On 07.01.2026 17:05 Uhr Julien +LIE wrote:

Following a recent discussion here about a possible rationalization
and consolidation of newsgroups, why not discuss it for news.* first?

I would propose to keep the following newsgroups which are still
relevant and/or active:

I am in favor of that.

It means removing:

news.admin.moderation Technical and social issues of newsgroup
moderation. (Moderated)

I think then the charter of another group should be changed to include
those discussions.

news.admin.net-abuse.misc Network facility abuse, including

spamming.
I think we should keep that.

news.announce.important General announcements of interest to all.
(Moderated)

I think we should keep at least one general announcement group.

news.groups.questions Where can I find talk about topic X?

Where is a good place to discuss this then?
--
kind regards Marco
Send spam to 1767801949muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Hi Marco,

news.admin.moderation Technical and social issues of newsgroup
moderation. (Moderated)

I think then the charter of another group should be changed to include
those discussions.

The general newsgroup I proposed to keep in that subhierarchy (news.admin.misc) can include those discussions.

news.admin.net-abuse.misc Network facility abuse, including

spamming.

I think we should keep that.

Are there still discussions there? (beyond the periodic posting of an
FAQ and stats)
At least not over these 3 last years. We also have a newsgroup
dedicated to abuse of email and another one to abuse of Usenet.

news.announce.important General announcements of interest to all.
(Moderated)

I think we should keep at least one general announcement group.

Then why not keep news.announce.important and remove news.admin.announce instead? Both of them are redundant nowadays.
I proposed to keep news.admin.announce as there are sometimes (rarely)
an announcement posted to that newsgroup, but yes I agree that news.announce.important has a broader scope than news.admin.announce.

news.groups.questions Where can I find talk about topic X?

Where is a good place to discuss this then?

I suggest to discuss this directly in news.groups; its description could
then be changed to for instance "Any question or discussion about
newsgroups." or whatever better wording.
--
Julien |eLIE

-2-aLa v|-rit|- pure et simple est tr|?s rarement pure et jamais simple.-a-+
(Oscar Wilde)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Op 7-1-2026 om 23:05 schreef Julien |eLIE:

Hi all,

Following a recent discussion here about a possible rationalization and consolidation of newsgroups, why not discuss it for news.* first?

I would propose to keep the following newsgroups which are still
relevant and/or active:

<snip>

You keep the 5 newsgroups I read....

It means removing:

<snip>

I do not read the newsgroups you propose to remove.

I also suggest the removal of news.announce.newusers and news.newusers.questions as I don't believe new users will subscribe to
these newsgroups nor take the time to read the 3 periodic messages
posted there.-a They could be posted to for instance news.groups instead.

Agreed with the proposal to remove those two.
I think there should be 1 newsgoups for all the FAQ's
and to my opinion news.answers is that group.
And questions can be asked in news.groups as you suggest.

My proposal is to allow FAQ's to be posted just once a month.
I think it's stupid to post a FAQ every day
and it is not necessary to post a FAQ every week.

NB: Foreseeing discussions about a possible loss of messages, I would
like to recall that news servers intended to keep historical contents do
not honour removal of newsgroups, so the history of Usenet and old
messages are not affected by the rationalization of the list of
newsgroups in archival servers.

That is part of my general respons to your proposal:
There are 3 possible actions of newsservers:

1.
Remove a group completely.
In that case all messages disappaer.
I think this what Eternal-September does.

2.
Do not remove a group but close it for new messages and close peering.
(this is what you propose, don't you?)
I do not know newsservers who do this.
Which newsserver(s) do this?

3.
Do nothing
A news group then stays active on this newsserver and messages will be
peered to other newsservers who do nothing.
I think this is what paganini.bofh.team does.
I saw it happen with the newsgroups from news.mozilla.org and from
microsoft.
When mozilla closed their newsserver, some other newsservers continued
with the mozilla.* newsgroups.
It was the beginning of alt.comp.software.firefox and alt.comp.software.thunderbird and I think also a group for seamonkey.
But that was because moderation of these mozilla groups stopped a few
months earlier.
When microsoft closed their newsserver more then 10 years ago, the newsgroup microsoft.public.windowsxp.general stayed the most important English
language newsgroup for Windows XP on a lot of newsservers. Today there
are 2 spammers filling that newsgroup.

I would like to see action number 2.


Rink

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Hi Rink,

You keep the 5 newsgroups I read....

These are indeed still active newsgroups :)

I do not read the newsgroups you propose to remove.

:)
Thanks for having taken the time to respond.

My proposal is to allow FAQ's to be posted just once a month.
I think it's stupid to post a FAQ every day
and it is not necessary to post a FAQ every week.

There was a reason a couple of decades ago for weekly postings.
Nowadays, it is not necessary at all. Monthly postings would be enough.
Maybe we should try to contact the senders by e-mail to see whether
they could adjust the frequency.

NB: Foreseeing discussions about a possible loss of messages, I would
like to recall that news servers intended to keep historical contents
do not honour removal of newsgroups, so the history of Usenet and old
messages are not affected by the rationalization of the list of
newsgroups in archival servers.

2.
Do not remove a group but close it for new messages and close peering.
(this is what you propose, don't you?)
I do not know newsservers who do this.
Which newsserver(s) do this?

I was not proposing that. News servers intended to keep historical
contents form part of the third category (keeping the newsgroups). The others, if of course they honour control articles, form part of the
first category (removal of the newsgroups).

I am not aware of any news server which would automatically mark a
newsgroup as read-only. It is possible to do that manually (setting the newsgroup status to "x").
Nonetheless, if articles expire in these newsgroups, they will happen to
be empty at some point (if not already empty).

y Local postings and articles from peers are allowed.
m The group is moderated and all postings must be approved.
n No local postings are allowed, only articles from
peers.
j Articles from peers are filed in the junk group
instead.
x No local postings, and articles from peers are
ignored.
=foo.bar Articles are filed in the group foo.bar instead.

More information in Section 3.1 of RFC 6048 about these standardized status.
--
Julien |eLIE

-2-aCe n'est pas en tournant le dos aux choses qu'on leur fait face.-a-+
(Pierre Dac)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Op 18-1-2026 om 17:12 schreef Julien |eLIE:

Hi Rink,

You keep the 5 newsgroups I read....

These are indeed still active newsgroups :)

I do not read the newsgroups you propose to remove.

:)
Thanks for having taken the time to respond.

My proposal is to allow FAQ's to be posted just once a month.
I think it's stupid to post a FAQ every day
and it is not necessary to post a FAQ every week.

There was a reason a couple of decades ago for weekly postings.
Nowadays, it is not necessary at all.-a Monthly postings would be enough.
-aMaybe we should try to contact the senders by e-mail to see whether
they could adjust the frequency.

NB: Foreseeing discussions about a possible loss of messages, I would
like to recall that news servers intended to keep historical contents
do not honour removal of newsgroups, so the history of Usenet and old
messages are not affected by the rationalization of the list of
newsgroups in archival servers.

2.
Do not remove a group but close it for new messages and close peering.
(this is what you propose, don't you?)
I do not know newsservers who do this.
Which newsserver(s) do this?

I was not proposing that.-a News servers intended to keep historical contents form part of the third category (keeping the newsgroups).-a The others, if of course they honour control articles, form part of the
first category (removal of the newsgroups).

I am not aware of any news server which would automatically mark a
newsgroup as read-only.-a It is possible to do that manually (setting the newsgroup status to "x").
Nonetheless, if articles expire in these newsgroups, they will happen to
be empty at some point (if not already empty).

-a y-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Local postings and articles from peers are allowed.
-a m-a-a-a-a-a-a-a The group is moderated and all postings must be approved.
-a n-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a No local postings are allowed, only articles from peers.
-a j-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Articles from peers are filed in the junk group instead.
-a x-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a No local postings, and articles from peers are ignored. -a =foo.bar-a Articles are filed in the group foo.bar instead.

More information in Section 3.1 of RFC 6048 about these standardized
status.

Thanks for your reply, Julien.
I learned about the possibilities j, m, n,x, y and foo.bar.

I did nor find the newsgroup foo.bar
I found alt.foo.bar on ES, but it's empty.

As you can see, I visit this newsgroup only a few times per month .....

Rink

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Hi Rink,

-a =foo.bar-a Articles are filed in the group foo.bar instead.

I did not find the newsgroup foo.bar
I found alt.foo.bar on ES, but it's empty.

foo.bar is just an example in the RFC, it is not an actual newsgroup.

This discussion about the rationalization of news.* did not appeal to
many people :(

FWIW, we're starting the rationalization of fr.* tomorrow. Let's act!
The equivalent of the Big-8 Board for the French hierarchy sent a
message a couple of weeks ago to cut a half of the fr.rec.*
subhierarchy. We'll remove 44 newsgroups (out of 83) in fr.rec.* (as announced in <fr.rec.20260123@localhost.local>).
Yes, we have much less newsgroups than the Big-8 so it's easier for the inventory of dead newsgroups. The process will last a few months as it
will be done subhierarchy by subhierarchy. fr.rec.* was the one with
the most empty newsgroups; there will be less removals for the others.

Some newsgroups had 1 or 2 discussions over the last year and naturally
were kept. Newsgroups squated and polluted by a few people too so as to
keep the trollers/spammers in "their" newsgroups and not pollute still
active and properly used newsgroups.
--
Julien |eLIE

-2-aPour voir qu'il fait noir, on n'a pas besoin d'|-tre une lumi|?re.-a-+
(Philippe Geluck)

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On 2/12/26 2:53 PM, Julien |eLIE wrote:

This discussion about the rationalization of news.* did not appeal to
many people :(

Your proposal (and to keep news.announce.important) made sense to me.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Julien +LIE wrote:

FWIW, we're starting the rationalization of fr.* tomorrow. Let's act!

"Someone" is working on that for de.* again, too. :)

The equivalent of the Big-8 Board for the French hierarchy sent a
message a couple of weeks ago to cut a half of the fr.rec.*
subhierarchy. We'll remove 44 newsgroups (out of 83) in fr.rec.* (as announced in <fr.rec.20260123@localhost.local>).

We do it group/sub-hierarchy per group/sub-hierarchy, voting on each
proposal ... Anyway, more than 50% really is a lot.

Some newsgroups had 1 or 2 discussions over the last year and naturally
were kept. Newsgroups squated and polluted by a few people too so as to keep the trollers/spammers in "their" newsgroups and not pollute still active and properly used newsgroups.

Looks like we use similar metrics.

-thh

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Hi Thomas,

FWIW, we're starting the rationalization of fr.* tomorrow. Let's act!

"Someone" is working on that for de.* again, too. :)

Oh, good to know! I wish you the best for the work on the rationalization.

The equivalent of the Big-8 Board for the French hierarchy sent a
message a couple of weeks ago to cut a half of the fr.rec.*
subhierarchy. We'll remove 44 newsgroups (out of 83) in fr.rec.* (as
announced in <fr.rec.20260123@localhost.local>).

We do it group/sub-hierarchy per group/sub-hierarchy, voting on each
proposal ... Anyway, more than 50% really is a lot.

There will be less removals for other sub-hierarchies. We had very
specific groups about beekeeping, tropical fish keeping or bonsai trees
in fr.rec.* as well as redundant newsgroups (3 about photography for instance), and some whose topic seems still fine nowadays but
unfortunately nobody had been wandering there for years (groups about roadtrips, poker, good tips for restaurants, Star Wars...). People tend
to use other media or international newsgroups (more frequented) for
some topics.

Anyway, if need be in the future, we can naturally recreate a given
newsgroup but we really doubt it will be the case.

Some newsgroups had 1 or 2 discussions over the last year and naturally
were kept. Newsgroups squated and polluted by a few people too so as to
keep the trollers/spammers in "their" newsgroups and not pollute still
active and properly used newsgroups.

Looks like we use similar metrics.

Great! :)
--
Julien |eLIE

-2-aQuod sis, esse uelis nihilque malis-a;
Summum nec metuas diem nec optes.-a-+ (Martial)

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Julien ELIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:

There will be less removals for other sub-hierarchies. We had very
specific groups about beekeeping, tropical fish keeping or bonsai trees
in fr.rec.* as well as redundant newsgroups (3 about photography for instance), and some whose topic seems still fine nowadays

Sounds like I'd be upset if I spoke French, since I subscribe to
five photography groups (particularly about film photography, and
hence pretty dead, but I'm not so interested in digital). Also sci.agriculture.beekeeping out of curiosity. They still seem like
"fine" topics to me, so I hope such attitudes stay out of the
hierarchies I use.

As for your proposed news.* and talk.* removals, I only subscribe
to news.announce.important, but my general objections stated in the
"Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc" RFD
apply equally to other groups you propose to remove. I doubt
there's any value in restating those arguments since I expect
anyone who cares has read that thread already. Since that issue
hasn't been decided by the board yet, your proposals seem
premature, which probably explains the quiet response.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Hi Computer Nerd Kev,

Sounds like I'd be upset if I spoke French, since I subscribe to
five photography groups

Even the contributors of fr.rec.photo (the main newsgroup) are in favour
of the rationalization.

<10ldqfp$p6ei$1@dont-email.me>
"D|?s le d|-part, on savait bien que 3 groupes photo c'|-tait deux de trop."

"From the start, we already knew that with 3 newsgroups, it was 2 too

many."

They still seem like "fine" topics to me, so I hope such attitudes
stay out of the hierarchies I use.

[...]

Since that issue hasn't been decided by the board yet, your
proposals seem premature, which probably explains the quiet response.

I understand. The general wishes of the Big-8 users may be different.
I was just speaking about the ongoing rationalization in the fr.* hierarchy.
--
Julien |eLIE

-2-aLe style est l'homme m|-me.-a-+ (Buffon)

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On 14.02.2026 05:02 Uhr Julien +LIE wrote:

I understand. The general wishes of the Big-8 users may be different.

We've had certain group removals - some people complained because
something is being changed - not many. The overall feedback wasn't much,
so I assume most people either don't care or agree silently, as we
didn't hear a veto from many people.
--
kind regards Marco
Send spam to 1771041739muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 14.02.2026 05:02 Uhr Julien ?LIE wrote:

I understand. The general wishes of the Big-8 users may be different.

We've had certain group removals - some people complained because
something is being changed - not many. The overall feedback wasn't much,
so I assume most people either don't care or agree silently, as we
didn't hear a veto from many people.

Right... The "all the people I'm imagining agree with me" argument.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On 15.02.2026 11:53 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 14.02.2026 05:02 Uhr Julien ?LIE wrote:

I understand. The general wishes of the Big-8 users may be
different.

We've had certain group removals - some people complained because
something is being changed - not many. The overall feedback wasn't
much, so I assume most people either don't care or agree silently,
as we didn't hear a veto from many people.

Right... The "all the people I'm imagining agree with me" argument.

The process is rather simple: The RfD messages are being posted to ngp
and to the affected groups, so everyone who is subscribed to one of
them, sees them. We encourage people to take part in the discussion to
tell their opinion. If there is no reply, people either didn't read the
message or don't want to tell if they are in favor or against the
proposal. If people are against, they usually tell that.
--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1771152796muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 15.02.2026 11:53 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 14.02.2026 05:02 Uhr Julien ?LIE wrote:

I understand. The general wishes of the Big-8 users may be
different.

We've had certain group removals - some people complained because
something is being changed - not many. The overall feedback wasn't
much, so I assume most people either don't care or agree silently,
as we didn't hear a veto from many people.

Right... The "all the people I'm imagining agree with me" argument.

The process is rather simple: The RfD messages are being posted to ngp
and to the affected groups, so everyone who is subscribed to one of
them, sees them. We encourage people to take part in the discussion to
tell their opinion. If there is no reply, people either didn't read the message or don't want to tell if they are in favor or against the
proposal. If people are against, they usually tell that.

I understand your process is designed to be a foregone conclusion,
since you assume from the outset that there's a majority desire on
Usenet for any groups without recent discussions to be removed.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:40:16 -0500, Marco Moock wrote:

On 15.02.2026 11:53 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 14.02.2026 05:02 Uhr Julien ?LIE wrote:

I understand. The general wishes of the Big-8 users may be
different.

We've had certain group removals - some people complained because
something is being changed - not many. The overall feedback wasn't
much, so I assume most people either don't care or agree silently,
as we didn't hear a veto from many people.

Right... The "all the people I'm imagining agree with me" argument.

The process is rather simple: The RfD messages are being posted to ngp
and to the affected groups, so everyone who is subscribed to one of
them, sees them. We encourage people to take part in the discussion to
tell their opinion. If there is no reply, people either didn't read the message or don't want to tell if they are in favor or against the
proposal. If people are against, they usually tell that.

the process is rather simple because anyone who speaks against your
desires to turn usenet into a small forum usually gets met with every
excuse you can come up with to make their point(s) irrelevant.

and you wonder why nobody speaks up...




--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Verily, in article <69923933@news.ausics.net>, did
not@telling.you.invalid deliver unto us this message:

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 15.02.2026 11:53 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

On 14.02.2026 05:02 Uhr Julien ?LIE wrote:

I understand. The general wishes of the Big-8 users may be
different.

We've had certain group removals - some people complained because
something is being changed - not many. The overall feedback wasn't
much, so I assume most people either don't care or agree silently,
as we didn't hear a veto from many people.

Right... The "all the people I'm imagining agree with me" argument.

The process is rather simple: The RfD messages are being posted to ngp
and to the affected groups, so everyone who is subscribed to one of
them, sees them. We encourage people to take part in the discussion to
tell their opinion. If there is no reply, people either didn't read the message or don't want to tell if they are in favor or against the
proposal. If people are against, they usually tell that.

I understand your process is designed to be a foregone conclusion,
since you assume from the outset that there's a majority desire on
Usenet for any groups without recent discussions to be removed.

I would like to see the empty groups gone, because they're both in the
way and depressing. I don't want to remove any topics, but I think it's
doable to combine groups on related topics into larger groups. One
example I've used before is the rec.arts.startrek hierarchy -- people
still use all the groups, but only lightly and usually with much
crossposting. It would make more sense, IMO, to revert to having a
simple rec.arts.startrek group for all of it.
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 17:05:49 EST, Julien |eLIE wrote:

[...] > I also suggest the removal of news.announce.newusers and news.newusers.questions as I don't believe new users will subscribe to
these newsgroups nor take the time to read the 3 periodic messages
posted there. They could be posted to for instance news.groups instead.

I'm against that. Some--even a few--probably will, and that's all that matters. Even though I tried Internet before Eternal September in a
museum, and then Usenet in 1996, I still read those in case I forget
anything, and they're interesting. Who's to say new users will know which newsgroups are best for new users?

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2