noel, sticks, yeti, and DrunkenThon all expressed concern that removing
the groups would also remove valuable historical discussions associated
with those groups. Scott Dorsey countered that news service providers typically do not guarantee that old posts will remain available
indefinitely in any case, and an archive server should not remove old
posts if the group no longer exists. Todd McComb suggested that it would
be more productive for anyone concerned about the availability of
historical posts to direct their efforts at improving the state of
Usenet archiving.
On 11/15/2025 12:36 PM, Usenet Big-8 Management Board wrote:
noel, sticks, yeti, and DrunkenThon all expressed concern that removing
the groups would also remove valuable historical discussions associated with those groups. Scott Dorsey countered that news service providers typically do not guarantee that old posts will remain available indefinitely in any case, and an archive server should not remove old
posts if the group no longer exists. Todd McComb suggested that it would
be more productive for anyone concerned about the availability of historical posts to direct their efforts at improving the state of
Usenet archiving.
I'd say this is not really what happened, at least from me, but it fits
the narrative you wish to pursue.
In article <10fasfh$3p4fj$1@dont-email.me>, wolverine01@charter.net
says...
On 11/15/2025 12:36 PM, Usenet Big-8 Management Board wrote:
noel, sticks, yeti, and DrunkenThon all expressed concern that removing
the groups would also remove valuable historical discussions associated
with those groups. Scott Dorsey countered that news service providers
typically do not guarantee that old posts will remain available
indefinitely in any case, and an archive server should not remove old
posts if the group no longer exists. Todd McComb suggested that it would >>> be more productive for anyone concerned about the availability of
historical posts to direct their efforts at improving the state of
Usenet archiving.
I'd say this is not really what happened, at least from me, but it fits
the narrative you wish to pursue.
I would like to be clear that Marco is the proponent of this RFD, not me
or the Board as a whole, and I don't want to speak for him, you, or
anybody else here. However, I do want to be sure that everyone gets
heard fairly. Could you please provide a concise summary of your key point(s), to ensure there's no confusion?
Message-ID: <10er36l$3jcic$1@dont-email.me>
My point of contention is that you say I have "concern that removing the groups would also remove valuable historical discussions." This is not true. Archive sites was brought into the discussion later, and only
muddled the issue. My point is that I believe the original reason
claimed for doing this was to try and increase usenet participation, and
I along with several others don't think it will do anything of the sort.
But, removing the groups WILL take away the opportunity for future
changes that cost might allow to usenet administrators who might be able
to increase how much they retain and for how long, and even get to the
point where all text group history can be put back in play. As I put it
in my reply, "You will take a currently "inactive" group and MAKE it dead."
Read the last four paragraphs of the above message ID and see if you can understand where I am coming from.
In article <10fok09$3d1jf$1@dont-email.me>, wolverine01@charter.net
says...
My point of contention is that you say I have "concern that removing the
groups would also remove valuable historical discussions." This is not
true. Archive sites was brought into the discussion later, and only
muddled the issue. My point is that I believe the original reason
claimed for doing this was to try and increase usenet participation, and
I along with several others don't think it will do anything of the sort.
But, removing the groups WILL take away the opportunity for future
changes that cost might allow to usenet administrators who might be able
to increase how much they retain and for how long, and even get to the
point where all text group history can be put back in play. As I put it
in my reply, "You will take a currently "inactive" group and MAKE it dead." >>
Read the last four paragraphs of the above message ID and see if you can
understand where I am coming from.
Thanks for replying, much appreciated.
For the first part of your point, is your view "it won't increase participation in other newsgroups", or "it won't increase participation
in Usenet as a whole", or both? People have been debating both, and
although similar, there have been different reasons given for each one. Thinking about it, perhaps it would be better for the summary to address
them separately in the next version of the RFD.
For the second part of your point, if I understand correctly you're
saying:
- News server administrators might want to retain more group history in
future (as a result of storage costs decreasing)
- If a newsgroup is removed, they won't be able to retain that group's
history.
On 11/22/2025 6:39 PM, Rayner Lucas wrote:
In article <10fok09$3d1jf$1@dont-email.me>, wolverine01@charter.net
says...
- If a newsgroup is removed, they won't be able to retain that
group's history.
This is the most important part. They can retain anything they want
in administering their service. The difference is that if you remove
the group, it won't be in a typical usenet group list to even see
what was/is in there. YOU will have killed it. I'm saying you will
have killed it, and for an invalid reason.
On 30.11.2025 05:48 Uhr sticks wrote:
On 11/22/2025 6:39 PM, Rayner Lucas wrote:
In article <10fok09$3d1jf$1@dont-email.me>, wolverine01@charter.net
says...
- If a newsgroup is removed, they won't be able to retain that
group's history.
This is the most important part. They can retain anything they want
in administering their service. The difference is that if you remove
the group, it won't be in a typical usenet group list to even see
what was/is in there. YOU will have killed it. I'm saying you will
have killed it, and for an invalid reason.
The proposals are being archived and the checkgroups can be archived
too.
Those people who want to keep archives will most likely archive the checkgroups and control messages too.
isc.org also archives the control messages since the 90s.
Interested people can find out the group history if they want.
On 11/30/2025 4:52 AM, Marco Moock wrote:
...
I don't think it is too nuanced an idea for you to understand, I think
you just won't consider it. You've obviously committed yourself down
this path.
On 11/22/2025 6:39 PM, Rayner Lucas wrote:
For the first part of your point, is your view "it won't increase participation in other newsgroups", or "it won't increase participation
in Usenet as a whole", or both? People have been debating both, and although similar, there have been different reasons given for each one. Thinking about it, perhaps it would be better for the summary to address them separately in the next version of the RFD.
I would say it won't increase anything, both. People aren't stupid and
can figure it out.
- If a newsgroup is removed, they won't be able to retain that group's
history.
This is the most important part. They can retain anything they want in administering their service. The difference is that if you remove the group, it won't be in a typical usenet group list to even see what
was/is in there. YOU will have killed it. I'm saying you will have
killed it, and for an invalid reason.
OK, so the important point is that sites won't list the group as one
that can be viewed or subscribed to, making the group history
inaccessible unless one knows that the group existed and seeks out a
provider that keeps non-current groups available in some form? Have I understood correctly?
If we had new users coming into Usenet, you could argue that streamlining the list
of potential discussion outlets would funnel traffic into the
remaining newsgroups . . . but we do not have new users
But the bottom line is . . . why?There are dozens, perhaps hundreds,
of non-viable newsgroups in the list, some of which are missing ahave on anything?
moderator, and some of which have been abandoned by their legitimate
users. Why are you going through the non-trivial process of removing
two of them? What effect will this
A technical question: If the plethora of
groups like clp.ansi-iso, clp.borland,
clp-delphi etc. were combined into a
single comp.lang.pascal group, would it
be possible to preserve old messages and
retrieve them under the new group name?
If so, I would vote for a thorough
overhaul of the group structure. I agree
with you: Doing it only for two groups is
not going to rescue Usenet from oblivion.
If so, I would vote for a thorough
overhaul of the group structure. I agree
with you: Doing it only for two groups is
not going to rescue Usenet from oblivion.
It's obvious, after all this time, that such a
"thorough overhaul" won't happen.
or ignore it
(group B).
If a user goes to a group-B site and uses a newsgroup that "has been removed", their posts into that group will only be seen on group-B
sites, since the group-A sites removed the group. It's even more
But the bottom line is . . . why? There are dozens, perhaps hundreds,
of non-viable newsgroups in the list, some of which are missing a
moderator, and some of which have been abandoned by their legitimate
users. Why are you going through the non-trivial process of removing
two of them?
Of course it won't magically "save" Usenet but I am under the impression
it is one of the last interesting move we could do for it: very few newsgroups with massification and active discussions with more contributors. Otherwise, we're just contemplating the desertion and scrolling year
after year a list of more and more empty newsgroups...
- the mentioned one about reading olds posts. While there might
exists few specialized archive servers which will continue allowing
access (i.e. ignoring Big8 rmgroups), most others that process
rmgroup messages (so basically all which are concerned with those
proposals at all) will make them inaccessible.
Thus, the net result is most regular people will lose access to
those old posts.
- I'm afraid it is too little too late. Removing 2 (or even 20)
groups in 2026 won't really help much to reduce Usenet decay IMHO.
For rmgroups to have any noticeable effect nowadays, we should be contemplating removing about 90% of the groups, and consolidating the
rest.
But for that to produce more benefits than damage, we'd firstly
need some version of HTTP's "301 permanent redirect" to be drafted
and implemented and distributed to users in both NNTP servers and
NNRP clients, so people who were subscribed to old group would get resubscribed to new group instead (possibly with confirmation being
asked of them first).
- I'm afraid it is too little too late. Removing 2 (or even 20) groups in
2026 won't really help much to reduce Usenet decay IMHO. For rmgroups to
have any noticeable effect nowadays, we should be contemplating removing
about 90% of the groups, and consolidating the rest.
But for that to produce more benefits than damage, we'd firstly need some
version of HTTP's "301 permanent redirect" to be drafted and implemented
and distributed to users in both NNTP servers and NNRP clients, so people
who were subscribed to old group would get resubscribed to new group
instead (possibly with confirmation being asked of them first).
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:05:49 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
1 files (1,690K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,172 |
| Posted today: | 1 |