In article <ulg58a$bgk$1@freeq.furie.org.uk>,
Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> wrote:
>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
>
>> This banner is on Google GRoups
>
>Yes, we read you the first time! Four times in as many minutes, in the
>same thread? Seriously...

Yes!
--
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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote

>>c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>>
>
> Bogus on c.

Hmmmmm. Pray tell please... how?

Maybe you know something I don't know about providing your mom, or your
non-technical neighbor, or your non-Usenetted coworker a read-only link to
almost any Usenet thread or article w/o using dejagoogle (and without
subjecting them to a HowardKnight search when nobody has the Message ID)?
--
And no, we won't give them the MessageID as they're not going to deal with
it (and nobody would have that Message-ID anyway, in a normal situation).

In article <ulgft5$3tfll$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote
>
>>>c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>>>
>>
>> Bogus on c.
>
>Hmmmmm. Pray tell please... how?
>
>Maybe you know something I don't know about providing your mom, or your
>non-technical neighbor, or your non-Usenetted coworker a read-only link to
>almost any Usenet thread or article w/o using dejagoogle (and without
>subjecting them to a HowardKnight search when nobody has the Message ID)?

Or a revival of interest!

>--
>And no, we won't give them the MessageID as they're not going to deal with
>it (and nobody would have that Message-ID anyway, in a normal situation).

--
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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote:

> Wally J wrote:
>
>> What that means is:
>> a. The ability to search before asking, will be greatly diminished.
>> b. The ability to reference a URI to a thread or post will disappear.
>> c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>
> Bogus on c.

There'll be nothing *TO* read

"new content from Usenet peers will not appear"

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> > Indeed. For example this still finds (multiple occurences of) your
> > article (assuming logged into a Google account)
>
> I was going to mention that some of those MID URIs require being logged
> into a Google Account, which Frank knows but maybe others might not.
>
> So he's right when he says "(assuming logged into a Google account):".
>
> Since I'm almost never logged into any Google account when I use Google
> services, I immediately noticed these URIs Frank initially supplied failed.
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID&dmode=source>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID>
> They asked me to log into my Google Account (which I almost never do).

Given that Google Groups is going to be shut down for new Usenet
content, this issue is somewhat moot, but ...

As I wrote, the 'selm=MID&dmode=source' and 'selm=MID' form URLs work
for some (very?) *old* articles and do *not* work for new(er)/current
articles, so it's no wonder that you got an error.

However for the (very?) old articles for which the URLs work, you do
*not* have to logged into a Google Account.

> These, of course work without needing to be logged into a Google Account.
> <http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
> which is, after all, the beauty of the dejagoogle beast.

The point of the URL forms I gave (including the form for new articles
(which needs to be logged into a Google account)) is to display an
*article*, given *only* the message-id. The URLs you give, point to a
*newsgroup*, not to an article-by-message-id.

On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> Sigh.
>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>
>
> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.

To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

In article <ku2kurFp458U1@mid.individual.net>,
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> Wally J wrote:
>>
>>> What that means is:
>>> a. The ability to search before asking, will be greatly diminished.
>>> b. The ability to reference a URI to a thread or post will disappear.
>>> c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>>
>> Bogus on c.
>
>There'll be nothing *TO* read
>
>"new content from Usenet peers will not appear"

Try a REAL newsserver.
--
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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <ulhshm$1uv5a$1@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>> Sigh.
>>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>>
>>
>> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.
>
>To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.

https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam

>--
>user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>

--
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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

On 12/15/23 10:10, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <ulhshm$1uv5a$1@dont-email.me>,
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>> Sigh.
>>>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.
>>
>> To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.
>
> https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam
>

I said **tried**, not succeeded. My spam inbox has some suspicious stuff
that it caught.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

In article <ulhu93$1uv5b$11@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>On 12/15/23 10:10, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <ulhshm$1uv5a$1@dont-email.me>,
>> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>>>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>> Sigh.
>>>>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.
>>>
>>> To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.
>>
>> https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam
>>
>
>I said **tried**, not succeeded. My spam inbox has some suspicious stuff
>that it caught.

WEll I just use blackholes.

>--
>user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>

--
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
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote

>>>>c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bogus on c.
>>
>>Hmmmmm. Pray tell please... how?
>>
>>Maybe you know something I don't know about providing your mom, or your
>>non-technical neighbor, or your non-Usenetted coworker a read-only link to
>>almost any Usenet thread or article w/o using dejagoogle (and without
>>subjecting them to a HowardKnight search when nobody has the Message ID)?
>
> Or a revival of interest!

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your reply. No big deal... but...

I'm trying to faithfully understand your response to when I said this:
"c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to read Usenet will go away too"

You summarily & curtly discounted that observation with this:
"Bogus on c."

I'll agree with any logically sensible opinion based on fact.
Especially when you folks (n.a.p. & n.a.n-a.u) know much more than I do.

I think "c" is valid given one of the values of the dejagoogle archive was
that people who have nothing (per se) to do with Usenet, can read them.

1. They can search them...
2. They can click on a thread or article URI sent to them...
3. Therefore they can read Usenet articles using only a web browser
a. No nntp service required
b. No nntp newsreader required
4. On any platform

To me, that's a big deal since we _lose_ that capability in February.
Unless we can find a replacement to the dejagoogle archives.

The "closest" (which sucks by the way) archive I can find is this:
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>

Let's work together to find a suitable replacement for dejagoogle.
--
I'm not on Usenet for my amusement; I'm here to learn what others know.
And if I can improve the discussion, I always try to add additinal value.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote

>> Bogus on c.
>
> There'll be nothing *TO* read
>
> "new content from Usenet peers will not appear"

Every action we do should help the average person in addition to ourselves.

Thanks Andy for explaining the probable thought process of "The Doctor"
(where you are one of the few people who post to the Android newsgroup who
know more about Android than I'll ever be able to learn in my lifetime).

I'm sure folks like "The Doctor" know more about Usenet than I'll ever
know, which is why I was faithfully trying to understand his point of view.

I'm not on Usenet for may amusement - I'm here to learn and to teach,
so it's important that I understand others - especially when they disagree
(because that may mean I'm wrong on my own understanding of the facts).

Thanks for explaining that the point of view of "The Doctor" was likely
that the only thing people outside of Usenet (like our own mothers) would
be able to read is _old_ content (after February 15th of 2024 anyway).

This is true only if we can't find a suitable replacement web archive.
I'm hoping those who know Usenet better than I will find that replacement.
--
Every action we do should help the average person in addition to ourselves.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote

>>> Bogus on c.
>>
>>There'll be nothing *TO* read
>>
>>"new content from Usenet peers will not appear"
>
> Try a REAL newsserver.

This isn't about us.
It's about them.

Nobody reading this thread will have a problem but EVERYONE who is reading
this thread has a mother or neighbor or coworker who NEEDS the information
we post to Usenet which we can easily get to them using a simple URL.

They can then read Usenet without having to know the technical details.

Unless "The Doctor" knows something I don't know, "trying a real
newsserver" won't work for that average person who doesn't know what Usenet
is and who doesn't have a newsreader - nor a news server to use it on.

*How do we reference information on Usenet to non-technical people?*

We can get that information.
But we can't get that information to THEM.

For example, I can send YOU a message id and you know what to do with it.
But I can't send THEM a message id - it would be patently absurd to do so.

Up until 20240215, THEY can read Usenet on any platform using any browser.
After 20240215, the only general-use news archive that I know of is...
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>

But it sucks, mostly because I can never get the search to work reliably.
Can you?
--
Usenet is a wonderful medium for intelligent people to meet each other.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> Given that Google Groups is going to be shut down for new Usenet
> content, this issue is somewhat moot, but ...

Agreed, as I'll agree with anyone who posits a sensibly logical assessment.

> As I wrote, the 'selm=MID&dmode=source' and 'selm=MID' form URLs work
> for some (very?) *old* articles and do *not* work for new(er)/current
> articles, so it's no wonder that you got an error.

Ah. I see. My mistake. I'm sorry. I apologize. I didn't get the main point.

> However for the (very?) old articles for which the URLs work, you do
> *not* have to logged into a Google Account.

I only tried it and it failed, but my assessment of why it failed was
apparently incorrect as I had "assumed" it failed due to the login alone.

Thanks for taking the time and energy and patience to clarify my mistake.

>> These, of course work without needing to be logged into a Google Account.
>> <http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
>> <http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
>> <http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
>> which is, after all, the beauty of the dejagoogle beast.
>
> The point of the URL forms I gave (including the form for new articles
> (which needs to be logged into a Google account)) is to display an
> *article*, given *only* the message-id.

Thank you for clarifying what the main point of the example was.
That's wonderful that the Message-ID could be searched on old dejagoogles.

Sorry for making the wrong assessment of the facts.
Mea culpa.

> The URLs you give, point to a
> *newsgroup*, not to an article-by-message-id.

Until this moment, I had never realized you could search the (old)
dejagoogle archives with a message-ID, so this is nice to know.

Back to your original line above, it may not matter in a few months.
--
On Usenet you can disagree & then learn from the subsequent clarification.

On 12/15/23 11:31, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <ulhu93$1uv5b$11@dont-email.me>,
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 12/15/23 10:10, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <ulhshm$1uv5a$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>>>>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>> Sigh.
>>>>>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.
>>>
>>> https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam
>>>
>>
>> I said **tried**, not succeeded. My spam inbox has some suspicious stuff
>> that it caught.
>
> WEll I just use blackholes.

But aren't those in space?

(also side question why do you write "well" like that?)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom