I've been using Eternal September as my Usenet provider out of sheer
inertia. It's clearly dying, though, becoming more like Eternal Wait.
Sometimes it takes several tries to load a message.

Eternal September relies on donations (and I send it money
occasionally), so it's probably starved for cash. I've looked at
various paid Usenet providers, with an eye to a low price since I don't
use Usenet all that much and never download big attachments. Pure
Usenet, a Netherlands-based service, looks the best from a pricing
standpoint, and it gets decent reviews.

https://www.pureusenet.nl

I'm open to other suggestions. I connect to the Internet through
T-Mobile, which apparently has never heard of Usenet.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On 11/7/2023 3:24 AM, Gary McGath wrote:
> I've been using Eternal September as my Usenet provider out of sheer
> inertia. It's clearly dying, though, becoming more like Eternal Wait.
> Sometimes it takes several tries to load a message.

I haven't had problems using it to load a new message from me, but I
do have to click an old message to get it to show new messages.
>
> Eternal September relies on donations (and I send it money
> occasionally), so it's probably starved for cash.  I've looked at
> various paid Usenet providers, with an eye to a low price since I don't
> use Usenet all that much and never download big attachments. Pure
> Usenet, a Netherlands-based service, looks the best from a pricing
> standpoint, and it gets decent reviews.
>
> https://www.pureusenet.nl
>
> I'm open to other suggestions. I connect to the Internet through
> T-Mobile, which apparently has never heard of Usenet.
>
Thanks for the information.

--Lee

Gary McGath wrote:

> I've been using Eternal September as my Usenet provider out of sheer
> inertia. It's clearly dying, though, becoming more like Eternal Wait.
> Sometimes it takes several tries to load a message.
>
> Eternal September relies on donations (and I send it money
> occasionally), so it's probably starved for cash. I've looked at
> various paid Usenet providers, with an eye to a low price since I don't
> use Usenet all that much and never download big attachments. Pure
> Usenet, a Netherlands-based service, looks the best from a pricing
> standpoint, and it gets decent reviews.
>
> https://www.pureusenet.nl
>
> I'm open to other suggestions. I connect to the Internet through
> T-Mobile, which apparently has never heard of Usenet.

https://news.individual.net/

€10 for the year

In article <uid6qk$vplf$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>I've been using Eternal September as my Usenet provider out of sheer
>inertia. It's clearly dying, though, becoming more like Eternal Wait.
>Sometimes it takes several tries to load a message.
>
>Eternal September relies on donations (and I send it money
>occasionally), so it's probably starved for cash. I've looked at
>various paid Usenet providers, with an eye to a low price since I don't
>use Usenet all that much and never download big attachments. Pure
>Usenet, a Netherlands-based service, looks the best from a pricing
>standpoint, and it gets decent reviews.
>
>https://www.pureusenet.nl
>
>I'm open to other suggestions. I connect to the Internet through
>T-Mobile, which apparently has never heard of Usenet.
>

Have a llok at nk.ca . The only caveat is that you have to VPN here.

>--
>Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Suffering will continue until we stop believing lies. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In Message-ID:<uid6qk$vplf$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:

>use Usenet all that much and never download big attachments. Pure
>Usenet, a Netherlands-based service, looks the best from a pricing
>standpoint, and it gets decent reviews.
>
>https://www.pureusenet.nl
>
>I'm open to other suggestions.

I've been happy with Astraweb <https://www.astraweb.com/>. They have
block accounts. 10+ years ago I paid $25 for 180 GB. I recently had
to buy another block. But that one-time fee of $25 was all I paid
them for those 10 years. You could also go cheaper and pay only $10
for 25GB.

They have good retention, and I don't see some of the spam others do,
though some does get through their filters.

Note: You can't sign up without allowing scripting and some cookies.

--
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" pobox "dot" com

On 11/7/2023 5:24 AM, Gary McGath wrote:
> I've been using Eternal September as my Usenet provider out of sheer
> inertia. It's clearly dying, though, becoming more like Eternal Wait.
> Sometimes it takes several tries to load a message.
>
> Eternal September relies on donations (and I send it money
> occasionally), so it's probably starved for cash.  I've looked at
> various paid Usenet providers, with an eye to a low price since I don't
> use Usenet all that much and never download big attachments. Pure
> Usenet, a Netherlands-based service, looks the best from a pricing
> standpoint, and it gets decent reviews.
>
> https://www.pureusenet.nl
>
> I'm open to other suggestions. I connect to the Internet through
> T-Mobile, which apparently has never heard of Usenet.
>

That's strange. I've had absolutely no problem with ES. I know Ray has
updated hardware this year and recently split it between two servers,
one for peering and the other for users IIRC. Evidently it developed
there was some problem with running both on one. He his also working
hard on spam filtering.

I was having some problems some months back but I discovered it was TB
related.

On 11/7/23 11:43 AM, Arthur T. wrote:

> I've been happy with Astraweb <https://www.astraweb.com/>. They have
> block accounts. 10+ years ago I paid $25 for 180 GB. I recently had
> to buy another block. But that one-time fee of $25 was all I paid
> them for those 10 years. You could also go cheaper and pay only $10
> for 25GB.

I'm afraid I don't understand block accounts. 25GB of what?

> They have good retention, and I don't see some of the spam others do,
> though some does get through their filters.
>
> Note: You can't sign up without allowing scripting and some cookies.

I've always accessed Usenet through a client app, currently Thunderbird.
Does that mean Astraweb allows only Web access?

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On 11/7/2023 12:15 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
> On 11/7/23 11:43 AM, Arthur T. wrote:
>
>> I've been happy with Astraweb <https://www.astraweb.com/>. They have
>> block accounts. 10+ years ago I paid $25 for 180 GB. I recently had
>> to buy another block. But that one-time fee of $25 was all I paid
>> them for those 10 years. You could also go cheaper and pay only $10
>> for 25GB.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand block accounts. 25GB of what?
>
>> They have good retention, and I don't see some of the spam others do,
>> though some does get through their filters.
>>
>> Note: You can't sign up without allowing scripting and some cookies.
>
> I've always accessed Usenet through a client app, currently Thunderbird.
> Does that mean Astraweb allows only Web access?
>
>

The block is the amount of data passed. If you do only text based groups
then, as Arthur said, 180 GB should last for a considerable time. 25 GB
a few years maybe.

You need scripting and cookies on just to sign up through a web browser.

In Message-ID:<uidvhm$14gn2$1@epsilon3.eternal-september.org>,
"Jay E. Morris" <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:

>On 11/7/2023 12:15 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
>> On 11/7/23 11:43 AM, Arthur T. wrote:
>>
>>> I've been happy with Astraweb <https://www.astraweb.com/>. They have
>>> block accounts. 10+ years ago I paid $25 for 180 GB. I recently had
>>> to buy another block. But that one-time fee of $25 was all I paid
>>> them for those 10 years. You could also go cheaper and pay only $10
>>> for 25GB.
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't understand block accounts. 25GB of what?
>>
>>> They have good retention, and I don't see some of the spam others do,
>>> though some does get through their filters.
>>>
>>> Note: You can't sign up without allowing scripting and some cookies.
>>
>> I've always accessed Usenet through a client app, currently Thunderbird.
>> Does that mean Astraweb allows only Web access?
>>
>>
>
>The block is the amount of data passed. If you do only text based groups
>then, as Arthur said, 180 GB should last for a considerable time. 25 GB
>a few years maybe.
>
>You need scripting and cookies on just to sign up through a web browser.

Jay interpreted what I said correctly. But for just text, 25 GB is
likely to last a lifetime.

And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent. I shudder
at the idea of a Web interface.

--
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" pobox "dot" com

Arthur T. wrote:

> In Message-ID:<uidvhm$14gn2$1@epsilon3.eternal-september.org>,
> "Jay E. Morris" <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
> >
> > The block is the amount of data passed. If you do only text based
> > groups then, as Arthur said, 180 GB should last for a considerable
> > time. 25 GB a few years maybe.
> >
> > You need scripting and cookies on just to sign up through a web
> > browser.
>
> Jay interpreted what I said correctly. But for just text, 25 GB is
> likely to last a lifetime.

If you are just using Usenet for text newsgroups something like a 100 GB
block could even outlive the Usenet provider!

> And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent. I shudder
> at the idea of a Web interface.

The Devil's own invention!

Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> Arthur T. wrote:
>> And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent.
>> I shudder at the idea of a Web interface.

> The Devil's own invention!

The Web is an important app on the Internet. But it's true that it's
far from the whole of the net. I'm annoyed when people use the words
"Internet" and "Web" interchangably. And baffled when more and more
non-Web parts of the Internet are shoehorned into the Web. It's like
figuring out how to abandon most of your house and do everything in
the bathroom. Why?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 11/8/2023 8:19 AM, Blueshirt wrote:
> Arthur T. wrote:
>
>> In Message-ID:<uidvhm$14gn2$1@epsilon3.eternal-september.org>,
>> "Jay E. Morris" <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>>>
>>> The block is the amount of data passed. If you do only text based
>>> groups then, as Arthur said, 180 GB should last for a considerable
>>> time. 25 GB a few years maybe.
>>>
>>> You need scripting and cookies on just to sign up through a web
>>> browser.
>>
>> Jay interpreted what I said correctly. But for just text, 25 GB is
>> likely to last a lifetime.
>
> If you are just using Usenet for text newsgroups something like a 100 GB
> block could even outlive the Usenet provider!
>
>> And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent. I shudder
>> at the idea of a Web interface.
>
> The Devil's own invention!
>

Yeah, don't know what I was thinking there.

Unless there's a screw up on their spam filters and they let Google
Groups postings through. Then 180GB is about 2 days.

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> writes:
> I'm afraid I don't understand block accounts. 25GB of what?

25GB of total data transferred. The main body of Usenet traffic these
days, unfortunately, is broadcasted warez, pirated movies, and pr0n. So
you can burn up a lot of transit that way. For text newsgroups 25GB is
nearly infinite.

On Thu, 09 Nov 2023 02:24:41 +0000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> Arthur T. wrote:
>>> And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent.
>>> I shudder at the idea of a Web interface.
>
>> The Devil's own invention!
>
> The Web is an important app on the Internet. But it's true that it's
> far from the whole of the net. I'm annoyed when people use the words
> "Internet" and "Web" interchangably. And baffled when more and more
> non-Web parts of the Internet are shoehorned into the Web. It's like
> figuring out how to abandon most of your house and do everything in the
> bathroom. Why?

Journalists equate social media with the internet, which is just
about as bad.

On 11/8/23 9:24 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> Arthur T. wrote:
>>> And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent.
>>> I shudder at the idea of a Web interface.
>
>> The Devil's own invention!
>
> The Web is an important app on the Internet. But it's true that it's
> far from the whole of the net. I'm annoyed when people use the words
> "Internet" and "Web" interchangably. And baffled when more and more
> non-Web parts of the Internet are shoehorned into the Web. It's like
> figuring out how to abandon most of your house and do everything in
> the bathroom. Why?

On mobile devices, we have the opposite trend, where you're supposed to
get a separate app for every business you deal with. That's worse, since
you don't know whether they're competently written or bother with secure
connections. I'm aware of your complaints about constant bug fix
releases, but I'd much rather rely on any major Web browser than on an
application which some retailer hired a random developer to write and
never gets its bugs fixed at all.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On 11/8/2023 8:24 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> Arthur T. wrote:
>>> And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent.
>>> I shudder at the idea of a Web interface.
>
>> The Devil's own invention!
>
> The Web is an important app on the Internet. But it's true that it's
> far from the whole of the net. I'm annoyed when people use the words
> "Internet" and "Web" interchangably. And baffled when more and more
> non-Web parts of the Internet are shoehorned into the Web. It's like
> figuring out how to abandon most of your house and do everything in
> the bathroom. Why?

I'm surprised anymore when anyone (under, say, 50) even references the
internet. The younglings grew up only knowing the web and if they even
think about the internet they think it's some small, vague part of the web.

There are exceptions of course.

Jay E. Morris <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
> I'm surprised anymore when anyone (under, say, 50) even references
> the internet. The younglings grew up only knowing the web and if
> they even think about the internet they think it's some small, vague
> part of the web.

Change 50 to 30 or 40 and you may be right. The Web only became a
sigfificant part of the Internet in 1993. So someone who is 50 now
was 20 then.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> On mobile devices, we have the opposite trend, where you're supposed
> to get a separate app for every business you deal with. That's
> worse, since you don't know whether they're competently written or
> bother with secure connections.

If that's a requirement, it sounds like it's guaranteed to drive away
at least half the potential customers.

> I'm aware of your complaints about constant bug fix releases, but
> I'd much rather rely on any major Web browser than on an application
> which some retailer hired a random developer to write and never gets
> its bugs fixed at all.

I'd much rather rely on code that's written to be free of security
bugs in the first place. After the tenth urgent security update to
a piece of software, I lose all confidence that there won't be an
eleventh, i.e. that *this* time they finally found and fixed all
the bugs. That would be like thinking that the lastest exoneration
https://wtop.com/national/2023/11/california-man-whos-spent-25-years-in-prison-for-murder-he-didnt-commit-has-conviction-overturned/
means that every innocent person in prison has finally been freed.

If I was found to have written something with multiple security bugs,
I would have concluded that I was in the wrong line of work, and left
software development to people who were more competent.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> I'm annoyed when people use the words "Internet" and "Web"
>> interchangably. And baffled when more and more non-Web parts of
>> the Internet are shoehorned into the Web. It's like figuring
>> out how to abandon most of your house and do everything in the
>> bathroom. Why?

> Journalists equate social media with the internet, which is just
> about as bad.

That's even worse. If someone wants to argue that they prefer the
return of walled gardens to the brief golden age of the open (no
censorship) Internet, I'll listen. But when Usenet, email lists,
etc., are just down the memory hole...

Which reminds me that I sometimes run into someone in person who used
to be active in rasff, but suddenly disappeared one day. When I ask
them why they left, they express surprise that Usenet is still around.
They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed it
had ceased to exist?

Maybe so. After all, there are TV ads for beef (or were last time I
watched over-the-air TV, which has been a while). Forgetting that
Usenet exists is no stranger than forgetting that beef exists. Or,
in both cases, that it once existed but had suddenly and inexplicably
ceased to exist.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 15:15:55 -0600, Jay E. Morris <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
> On 11/8/2023 8:24 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>> Arthur T. wrote:
>>>> And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent.
>>>> I shudder at the idea of a Web interface.
>>
>>> The Devil's own invention!
>>
>> The Web is an important app on the Internet. But it's true that it's
>> far from the whole of the net. I'm annoyed when people use the words
>> "Internet" and "Web" interchangably. And baffled when more and more
>> non-Web parts of the Internet are shoehorned into the Web. It's like
>> figuring out how to abandon most of your house and do everything in
>> the bathroom. Why?
>
> I'm surprised anymore when anyone (under, say, 50) even references the
> internet. The younglings grew up only knowing the web and if they even
> think about the internet they think it's some small, vague part of the web.

Another thing that is annoying is adverts claiming to have the fastest
wifi speeds when what I think they mean is uplink bandwidth? I know
there are different generations of the 802.11 standard and some
providers may provide older routers than others. Also there is some
variance between routers with signal strength etc. But I don't think
ISPs are trying to get you to buy their service on that.

I think that is catching on, as I've definitely heard younger, and less
technical, people ask "do you have wifi?" when what they want to know is
"can I access the web here?" and what they should ask "is there internet
access available?".

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams

On 11/9/23 10:07 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Which reminds me that I sometimes run into someone in person who used
> to be active in rasff, but suddenly disappeared one day. When I ask
> them why they left, they express surprise that Usenet is still around.
> They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed it
> had ceased to exist?

I'm sure you remember how Andrew Cuomo launched his political career
with a smear campaign against Usenet. A bunch of providers reacted by
dropping Usenet service, which was no longer a money-maker for them
anyway. Maybe these people lost their Usenet connection during that time
and assumed it was gone completely?

When Google dropped its RSS reader, a lot of pundits said RSS was now
dead. Some people must have believed it.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On 11/10/23 4:37 AM, Andy Leighton wrote:
> Another thing that is annoying is adverts claiming to have the fastest
> wifi speeds when what I think they mean is uplink bandwidth? I know
> there are different generations of the 802.11 standard and some
> providers may provide older routers than others. Also there is some
> variance between routers with signal strength etc. But I don't think
> ISPs are trying to get you to buy their service on that.

It seems reasonable to me that they're referring to their router speed.
Wi-Fi speed is rarely the bottleneck, but probably their market research
tells them that touting their Wi-Fi speed sells better than touting
their Internet access speed.

> I think that is catching on, as I've definitely heard younger, and less
> technical, people ask "do you have wifi?" when what they want to know is
> "can I access the web here?" and what they should ask "is there internet
> access available?".

I don't normally carry an Ethernet cable with me, so when I'm looking
for an Internet connection away from home, I'm specifically interested
in Wi-Fi. An RJ45 connector doesn't do me much good.

Tangentially related: Yesterday I gave a presentation at the local
library on Wi-Fi safety. I talked about protocols on a simple technical
level, pointed out the risks of apps of unknown quality, and recommended
using a VPN. Only three people showed up. My previous presentation, on
scams, drew 7 (the maximum number I allow for these things). I guess
"scams" sounds like a more exciting topic.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 01:22:07 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>> On mobile devices, we have the opposite trend, where you're supposed
>> to get a separate app for every business you deal with. That's
>> worse, since you don't know whether they're competently written or
>> bother with secure connections.
>
>If that's a requirement, it sounds like it's guaranteed to drive away
>at least half the potential customers.
>
>> I'm aware of your complaints about constant bug fix releases, but
>> I'd much rather rely on any major Web browser than on an application
>> which some retailer hired a random developer to write and never gets
>> its bugs fixed at all.
>
>I'd much rather rely on code that's written to be free of security
>bugs in the first place. After the tenth urgent security update to
>a piece of software, I lose all confidence that there won't be an
>eleventh, i.e. that *this* time they finally found and fixed all
>the bugs. That would be like thinking that the lastest exoneration
>https://wtop.com/national/2023/11/california-man-whos-spent-25-years-in-prison-for-murder-he-didnt-commit-has-conviction-overturned/
>means that every innocent person in prison has finally been freed.
>
>If I was found to have written something with multiple security bugs,
>I would have concluded that I was in the wrong line of work, and left
>software development to people who were more competent.

They will never find and fix all the bugs, because they're not
omniscient, and can only fix the bugs they find, often by end users
reporting them, (possibly introducing new bugs in the process, being
fellable humans, and all).

Same for false convictions (leaving aside cases where people are
deliberately framed).
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

In article <5atlkidednam3dmps5baj8v1ut54b7p2tv@4ax.com>,
Arthur T. <arthur@munged.invalid> wrote:
>And, as my headers show, I access Usenet via Forte Agent. I shudder
>at the idea of a Web interface.

Ditto.

I'm still using trn 4.0. I've found that it's installable
in Windows Subsystem for Linux. I *love* its kill file
feature, though I don't use it all that much. And it's
pure text; I defy anything short of The Blight to infect
my computer through that.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

On 11/10/23 2:09 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:

> I'm still using trn 4.0. I've found that it's installable
> in Windows Subsystem for Linux. I *love* its kill file
> feature, though I don't use it all that much. And it's
> pure text; I defy anything short of The Blight to infect
> my computer through that.
>

Can trn access the Known Net?

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com