https://groups.google.com/g/news.software.readers
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions.
Historical content remains viewable.

An updated web-searchable no-login web-search archive that reports a unique
URL will need to be located that allows people to search before posting to
the n.s.r newsgroup & which allows unique references to recent articles.
--
You can remove your Google Groups filters now.

Indira <indira@ghandi.net> wrote:
(also multi-posted to other newsgroups)

> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.freeware
> Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions.
> Historical content remains viewable.

Yay! This was known to occur a couple months ago.

> An updated web-searchable no-login web-search archive that reports a unique
> URL will need to be located that allows people to search before they post
> to the a.c.f. newsgroup and which allows unique references to recent posts.

Nope, not needed. One, use the search in your own NNTP client. How
much you can search depends on the retention of your NNTP client. Two,
modus operandi is no one bothers to search any newsgroup before posting.

Am 23.02.2024 schrieb Indira <indira@ghandi.net>:

> An updated web-searchable no-login web-search archive that reports a
> unique URL will need to be located that allows people to search
> before posting to the n.s.r newsgroup & which allows unique
> references to recent articles.

rslight can handle that.
https://pi-dach.dorfdsl.de/rocksolid/search.php

It offers various ways to search (although I dunno if regex is
supported) and the URLS to the articles seem to be static for me.

Am 23.02.2024 schrieb VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH>:

> Nope, not needed. One, use the search in your own NNTP client. How
> much you can search depends on the retention of your NNTP client.
> Two, modus operandi is no one bothers to search any newsgroup before
> posting.

The problem is that you need your own archive. Not everybody has that.
Sometimes it is also interesting to read stuff from 30 years ago that
almost nobody kept.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:55:44 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:

> Am 23.02.2024 schrieb Indira <indira@ghandi.net>:
>
>> An updated web-searchable no-login web-search archive that reports a
>> unique URL will need to be located that allows people to search
>> before posting to the n.s.r newsgroup & which allows unique
>> references to recent articles.
>
> rslight can handle that.
> https://pi-dach.dorfdsl.de/rocksolid/search.php
>
> It offers various ways to search (although I dunno if regex is
> supported) and the URLS to the articles seem to be static for me.

Regex is not supported at this time. The search will, of course, only find
what is on the server (articles the server contains).

Body searching is using SQLite Full-Text Search:
https://www.sqlitetutorial.net/sqlite-full-text-search/

So it has the abilities and limitations of this SQLite feature.

Marco Moock wrote:

>> Nope, not needed. One, use the search in your own NNTP client. How
>> much you can search depends on the retention of your NNTP client.
>> Two, modus operandi is no one bothers to search any newsgroup before
>> posting.
>
> The problem is that you need your own archive. Not everybody has that.
> Sometimes it is also interesting to read stuff from 30 years ago that
> almost nobody kept.

+1

And, for many, you need to create an account, and maybe even pay for it.
None of that was needed to run a dejanews search (which Google inherited).

Your baby brother who was an English major could have run a Usenet search.
After yesterday you have to be an expert just to run an Usenet-only search.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 01:11:05 +0530, Indira <indira@ghandi.net> wrote:
>Marco Moock wrote:
>
>>> Nope, not needed. One, use the search in your own NNTP client. How
>>> much you can search depends on the retention of your NNTP client.
>>> Two, modus operandi is no one bothers to search any newsgroup before
>>> posting.
>> The problem is that you need your own archive. Not everybody has that.
>> Sometimes it is also interesting to read stuff from 30 years ago that
>> almost nobody kept.
>
>And, for many, you need to create an account, and maybe even pay for it.
>None of that was needed to run a dejanews search (which Google inherited).
>Your baby brother who was an English major could have run a Usenet search.
>After yesterday you have to be an expert just to run an Usenet-only search.

attn: complaint dept
Deja News Inc.
Echelon II
Suite 300
9430 Research Blvd
Austin, Texas 78759
(97W44:40,30N23:05)

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:56:48 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:

> Sometimes it is also interesting to read stuff from 30 years ago that
> almost nobody kept.

Yes, I recall finding that article Linus T. sent to the world back in
1991, about that Minix clone he was working on as a hobby project at Uni
in Finland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux

However, that particular doc might have been saved by many. ;)

--
___ _ | http://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide |
-(o o)----/_/_--_--.--| >Purge M$ products!< |
-/ v \---/--/_'/_//---|>http://www.babymilkaction.org/nestlefree<|
-\V V/--------/-------| >Killfile a google grouper!< |

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:03:20 +0530, Indira wrote:

> Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions.

Good riddance. We all knew this coming so why the need to multipost the
"news". Nobody cares.

--
s|b

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:08:48 +0100, s|b wrote:

>> Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions.
>
> Good riddance.

You have a very bad attitude young man. <said in a scolding sort of way>
Your attitude is the same attitude many people with bad attitudes have.

People, like you, with a bad attitude, are terrible netizens because they
never think to search for an answer before they post their questions, or
they'd wrongly recommend a bad answer having never ever searched first.

I'd agree with you only if Google had killed the posting ability, but if
Google kept the incoming feeds being fed into their updated search engine.

The loss of a good (well, OK) search engine, is something to be sad about.

Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote in
news:urrnaj$3msi6$1@news.samoylyk.net:
>
> I'd agree with you only if Google had killed the posting ability, but
> if Google kept the incoming feeds being fed into their updated search
> engine.
>
> The loss of a good (well, OK) search engine, is something to be sad
> about.
>

I'm not so sure about that. I think the fact that Google was indexing
usenet posts was a motivating factor in the tidal-wave of spam we suffered.
The spam was not so much aimed at the unfortunate readers of the affected
groups, but was done more as an SEO hack.

--
Colin Macleod.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:

> You have a very bad attitude young man. <said in a scolding sort of way>
> Your attitude is the same attitude many people with bad attitudes have.
>
> People, like you, with a bad attitude, are terrible netizens because they
> never think to search for an answer before they post their questions, or
> they'd wrongly recommend a bad answer having never ever searched first.

First rule of Usenet: UTFS. Many years ago I used GG as a search engine
(and it was useful) , but I haven't done that in ages. You sound
judging, maybe even projecting?
> I'd agree with you only if Google had killed the posting ability, but if
> Google kept the incoming feeds being fed into their updated search engine.
>
> The loss of a good (well, OK) search engine, is something to be sad about.

What is holding you back to start your own database? The person that
educated me about Forté Agent had a duplicate and he used that to
retrieve all messages with bodies (of the newsgroups he was subscribed
to) to create his own personal database. It's only text, right?

--
s|b

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 11:18:24 -0000 (UTC), Colin Macleod wrote:

>> The loss of a good (well, OK) search engine, is something to be sad
>> about.
>>
>
> I'm not so sure about that. I think the fact that Google was indexing
> usenet posts was a motivating factor in the tidal-wave of spam we suffered.
> The spam was not so much aimed at the unfortunate readers of the affected
> groups, but was done more as an SEO hack.

I get it that you're suggesting that the one or two spam kings were
counting on both the ability to spam through Google servers and the ability
for the rest of the world to find the web pages Google crafts.

Your argument seems to be that the spammers aimed to be included in the
searchable web page archives - which could be the case for all I know.

However, if they couldn't spam in the first place, they wouldn't be
included in those archives, right?

If Google had just turned off the posting, but if Google kept its peering,
then these spam kings would have had to find another server to exploit.

And judging from the huge drop off of 30K spams per day to less than a
thousand as reported somewhere in news.admin.peering, they haven't.

Also judging from the known alternate Usenet search engines, the spammers
haven't found a susceptible nntp admin who will let them spam us to death.
<https://news.software.readers.narkive.com/>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.software.readers>

What's a shame isn't that Google Groups turned off the ability to post.
What's a shame is that Google also turned off the search engine additions.