I am reading this newsgroup using Google Groups and Firefox in Windows XP. I also read the QuickBooks newsgroup. In the latter after I read a message it keeps track of that fact and later distinguishes between read and unread messages, but in Quicken it always shows all messages as unread. Is this a flaw in Google Groups (I know the Usenet community frowns on that), or something in the way I logged in? Any ideas? Anyone else with the same experience?
Sorry for the Off-Topic inquiry.
Renny
You can access both the quicken and quickbooks news groups using new.eternal-september.org news servers. They offer FREE access to text only newsgroups. Many folks have gotten accounts when their ISP dropped usnet access.
You'll like this a lot better than using google groups and your browser to read the messages.
Do FireFox or Mozilla or whatever ... offer access to all historical newsgroup posts?
Google group access to this newsgroup shows that they have over 36K TOPICS in their archive. I have no idea how many messages that equates to but I believe it goes back several years.
| Do FireFox or Mozilla or whatever ... offer access to all historical | newsgroup posts?
| --
| John Pollard
Google and a couple others archive Usenet. That's about the only good think about Google.
That is unless you you add..
X-No-Archive: Yes
Then any Usenet post won't be archived and Google removes it after ~ 30 days.
The important thing is Google Groups is NOT the best way to access Usenet. For one you must be Online and another is more Usenet spam is generated by Google Groupers these days than *any other* source.
Too many people getting a FREE GMail account, getting a FREE Blog Spot and FREE Google Groups account then spamming said Blogspot to Usenet.
Ok, I'm basically with you on this: I may have misunderstood your original comment. I don't know about the spamming part because I don't keep track of those things; but I know Google is a clumsy interface for reading/writing in newsgroups.
[Do you believe that there would be less spam if Google didn't have a way to post to newsgroups? Seems unlikely to me; I'd guess Google reached its "lofty" position just by virtue of being the easiest way. I don't think spammers would be deterred by having to use some other means of distribution ... including writing their own. I can't see where anything deters them, including threat of jail.]Thanks Laura for the link to the news.eternal-september.org news server. I am now using Outlook Express to read the QB and Q newsgroups, and it keeps track of read and unread messages just like it should.
Roadrunner does not offer a free usenet news server.
As for the Google Groups reader, I can't quite agree that it is all that awful. It's nice that it lets me see all messages of one thread in a single window. The fact that a lot of Googlers are spammers can't be cured by using a direct usenet reader.
Anyway, thanks to you all.
Renny
I think it is a hard one to call. Most ISPs will shut off the spammer's account. Who's account is at fault here: the free gmail account or the ISP that provides their internet service? The ISP will pass the buck to gmail because it was their account used. So the spammers are basically free to spam away. It's too easy. Plus *most* google group posters are not familiar with usenet and tend to become annoying after a while. Many people block anyone posting through the google groups. Some even go as far as block those with gmail accounts.
From: "Laura"
| I think it is a hard one to call. Most ISPs will shut off the spammer's | account. Who's account is at fault here: the free gmail account or the ISP | that provides their internet service? The ISP will pass the buck to gmail | because it was their account used. So the spammers are basically free to | spam away. It's too easy. Plus *most* google group posters are not familiar | with usenet and tend to become annoying after a while. Many people block | anyone posting through the google groups. Some even go as far as block those | with gmail accounts.
Yes, the enlightened with advanced NNTP Clients filter all Google Grouper posts.
{ Me, I don't filter anything because I'm always searching for malicious activity/malware. }
Right, see signature for directions!
I almost eliminated newsgroup spam by scoring all Google Groupers, it seems Google actually encourages them, maybe to keep up their numbers?
Now if we can get you to stop top posting.....
But using a newsreader with proper scoring and/or killfiling abilities allows you not to see their spam.
| Right, see signature for directions!
| I almost eliminated newsgroup spam by scoring all Google Groupers, it | seems Google actually encourages them, maybe to keep up their numbers?
I think its because Google has ways to make profit off the spam and additional clicks to sites.
Have we finally come to an agreement on top vs. bottom posting? I've been amazed that after all these years even our experts are still half top and half bottom. I'm basing this observation mainly on the Microsoft help groups. I would be delighted to follow the consensus standard if I knew what it is.
The standard is to see what's most common in the group. Most MSFT groups prefer top posting (although I won't, even there. I snip and interleave replies) most non-MSFT prefer either bottom or interlieved.
You'll find most here use bottom or interleaved posting.
NOTE: Bottom posting w/o snipping is almost as bad as top posting.
Here's some very old information that's still completely valid today:
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required