Reader Rejection

l

What?

.

I see.

Like that? Idiot. Oh, and it's "usenet", not "news net", grandpa.

Apparently, he wants to be blocked from posting on usenet. He posts as much useless crap as Dimbulb & the others who use sock puppets.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

What ever you want to call it. The last time I looked at it, it was NNTP = "Network News Transport Protocol" I mean, that is what I use to set up my reader and write code for? What do you use? And "news net" was my short of "News on the network" I don't know where you're thinking is but most of you youngsters normally are good at coming up with slang acronyms, I don't know why you didn't get that one.

But in any case, it's obvious you don't know enough about the protocol to give an answer

Thanks any way.

Jamie

col

ng

e

le.

And that's used for Usenet. I mean, it's called TCP, but I don't see you calling this "transmission control". Moron.

"

Because you're not young and it's dumb.

About as much as you... Except I don't talk in run-on sentences that would make HAL9000 blow himself out the airlock.

If you don't have anything useable, please go away. I actually put my time to constructive use.

You have poor judge of people, but I'll accept that because there seems to be a lot of miss informed people lately.

Jamie

l

No, it isn't possible without the cooperation of all server operators to whom your un-person has access. What you wish for is antithetical to the protocol. NNTP, like SMTP, was never really designed to cope with this sort of, and these numbers of, disruptive participants. Perhaps that is part of why usenet seems to be dying a slow, slow death. I despair at the balkanized web-based forums that have muscled in on the territory.

In some rare instances, the disruptive person's service provider might care, and be willing to do something about it, but I fear that the time of service providers caring about things like this (especially on usenet) are long past. And they have an arbitrary number of other accommodating hosts to move to, even if you do get them booted.

I've heard it called "netnews" but not yet this new variant. And I wish people would quit making untopical, irrelevant, and utterly boring political remarks about "our" (no, YOUR) system in seemingly EVERY thread, at a steady 4-year pace that is as predictable as day following night. The narrative is always the same; only the protagonists' and antagonists' identities change over the years.

AFAIAA, no. NNTP servers don't query the "User Agent" when retrieving.

RFC977 et seq. is the definitive source.

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

ROFL!

--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

No, that's what (spit!) FaceBook is for.

Hope This Helps! Rich

:) well, I never got into FaceBook, I just think it's a little to personal for my taste.

Jamie

What ever you're talking about, it's beyond me.

Go mix some meds with that drink you're having

Jamie

:)

Yes, but it's better than nothing, and it is still NNTP behind the scenes. I meant specifically the web-based *forums*, where there are

1000 disjoint networks of "discussion boards", each for a different topic, so you have to chase down 1000 slow, weird, unthreaded websites that all try as hard as they can to look different, to read up on your interests. One day they'll catch up with supporting the usage patterns that usenet has for many years, and we can then say to them, "Welcome to the 1980s!"

Mind you, although this part of Google Groups is just a web proxy to usenet, they seem intent on blurring the distinction between usenet and their own attempt at enclosing the commons, the mailing lists they host also under the name "Google Groups".

Hypocrites mostly say "Yes, but....."