On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:07:15 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
The problem:
What would you suggest I use for connectivity?

No alternative at all ? Cable or ADSL, whichever Comcast isn't. If none then
presumably the internet you already have ?

ADSL is unavailable in much of the country, including many places that
aren't nearly as isolated as one might think.

I live 25 miles outside Nashville in a neighborhood filling with
"McMansions". Here, it's either Charter or dialup. No FIOS, no DSL, no
wireless. (my Sprint phone doesn't even work unless I go outside...)

Samuel M. Goldwasser wrote:

I did that when UPenn dropped USENET, but then someone suggested aioe
(nntp.aioe.org) which is currently free, and seems to be just about as good.
And no sign-in password.

And blocked by many users because of the amount of SPAM and troll messages
that originate from that site.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 08:01:54 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


mm wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:45:01 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:25:12 -0400, mm put
finger to keyboard and composed:

On 20 Sep 2008 23:43:01 GMT, Allodoxaphobia
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:00:47 -0400, mm wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:44:11 -0700, "nospam" wrote:

http://www.comcast.net/newsgroups/

I'm gonna miss these two groups more than most.

Thanks for all the help over the last 15+ years.

Read my sig.

... if you had one.

The post you replied to had one. Does it have to have a blank line or
label that says sig for you to be able to tell?

I must confess that I didn't recognise your sig, either, until you
added the dash-dash-space.

- Franc Zabkar

I understand that. But you didn't think it so important that you
posted about it just to point out that I was wrong. You don't have
the troll-like nature the other two exhibited.


It isn't a sig file without the sig delimiter.

Now that's a real answer -- and I appreciate that you are forthright
enough to give one -- which could well account for the insistance of
allodox and uclan that it wasn't a sig. Maybe that's their reason
too.

But WADR I'm not convinced it's true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block says nothing about any
required delimiter.

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com...212987,00.html
doesn't either.

http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/docs/Usenet.html says only:
"Avoid long rambling signatures. Keep your sig short and simple.
MT-NewsWatcher encourages the "McQuary limit" for signatures-at most
four lines of at most 80 characters each; if you enter a longer sig in
the Personalities dialog, it will warn you. You cannot enter a sig
longer than 8 lines."

I could keep looking, but I have other reasons to think a sig file
needs no delimiter.

1) When I started on Usenet, v. 0.99 was the current version of Agent.
I don't think it recognized --b as something special, and neither it
nor any version up to v 1.93, which I'm using now, inserted those
characters. The sig file is whatever one types in the sig field,
which later gets appended to an individual article's text, afaict.

In addition, IIRC, --b was an innovation a few years after I started
in Usenet. I don't think such a later innovation works to redefine
sig. retroactively.

That combination of
two dashes, a space and a return allow proper news readers to
automatically trim the signature when you reply to a message. ANything
else is just inline text, no matter why it is there. Your news reader
software should automatically add the delimiter, followed by a simple
text file you create as your signature.

AFAIK even later versions of Agent** don't add a delimiter, and there
are certainly times, not with a sig as long as mine is now, but with a
short one, when someone might not want his sig stripped, maybe if it
were a copyright notice or the disclaimer "I am not a lawyer".

**Now maybe some think that Agent is not "proper" for this reason
(although v1.93 and higher, and maybe some lower versions do strip the
--b delimited sigs) but I've looked at OE and Netscape and maybe one
or two other news readers, and even early versions of Agent have far
more commands and are far more versatile. There are a couple features
(like allowng a different email -from address for posts and emails)
that my version doesn't have that OE does have, but newer versions of
Agent have those now.

I think this might be a cultural difference, like in some cultures
it's polite to burp after the meal, or to leave food on the plate to
prove one has had enough. If one lives with a newsreader that auto
inserts the --b, it seems like the proper thing to do, but if one
lives in Agent world, it doesn't seem necessary.

BTW, FWIW, I think Agent is the only newsreader that has its own
newsgroup, two of them actually. One for modifying the code. OE etc.
has one or more NGs but most of the traffic is about email, I think.

You are using Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) which is
about six years old. Even so, it should support a proper sig file.
What you are using right now is not a sig delimiter. It is missing the
space after the dashes.

For one reason or another, you don't see it, but Franc and I do. All 3
characters. When I reply to my own posts on this group, the sig. gets
stripped.

I only figured out on Tuesday that my service was cancelled; it took
until Thursday to pick an alternative, and until Saturday when I read
the start of this thread to decide to tell everyone how
Erols/RCN/Starpower had behaved. My post in this thread was the
first time I had used the sig, and so it had errors. Once I saw them,
I was able to correct them.
--
A tribute to Erols/RCN/Starpower which took away newsgroups,
without giving any notice, in advance or when they did it!!

And a real tribute to https://www.forteinc.com/apn/subscribe.php
which starts at 3 dollars for 12 gigs a month,
including alt, misc, the big 8 and everything else, 12 gigs is
far more than someone who dl's mostly text should ever need.

The sig just above wasn't stripped when you replied, and watching the
insertion point, it surely appears that there is no space after the
--. But I put a space in the sig text, and when I reply to the same
post, the sig gets stripped. If you're using mozilla and it stripped
trailing spaces, no sig would get auto-trimmed for you, and I'm sure
that's not the situation. Another confusing computer moment.

Best regards,
--
A tribute to Erols/RCN/Starpower which took away newsgroups,
without giving any notice, in advance or when they did it!!

And a real tribute to https://www.forteinc.com/apn/subscribe.php
which starts at 3 dollars for 12 gigs a month,
including alt, misc, the big 8 and everything else, 12 gigs is
far more than someone who dl's mostly text should ever need.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:29:13 -0700, UCLAN wrote:

mm wrote:

But I can't understand how the two of you don't know that you can't
tell just from looking, and why you think there was no sig. when I've
told you there was one**. And why it's so important to each of you,
and why you're so sure you're right, that you go to the trouble to
post.

"Read my sig" was meant to tell the OP that he should look at the
bottom for critical information, in case he became bored by the
details in the text about what was needed for conversion, etc.

A) There was no sig (as Google will verify.) It appeared as plain
text in the body of your message. Nothing to distinguish it as a
sig rather than just more of your post.

And why would that matter to the OP?

How was one to know where
your text stopped and your sig began?

Why does he have to know?

As long as he reads to the end, he'll see the part I especially wanted
him to see.

My post in reply to Michael disputes the notion that a sig. has to
start with --b. I don't think it does, so therefore Google can't
verify that there was no sig. Such a sig. can be recognized when it
appears over and over after*** every article a person posts. ***Of
course one or more newsreaders allow for inserting a sig. other than
at the end.

Message-ID:

B) You're taking the trouble to reply. What does that say?

I already know that I have a morbid curiosity about things like this
and the people who do them. But you didn't answer why you thought it
important enough to post. You may have more time for self-examination.
--
A tribute to Erols/RCN/Starpower which took away newsgroups,
without giving any notice, in advance or when they did it!!

And a real tribute to https://www.forteinc.com/apn/subscribe.php
which starts at 3 dollars for 12 gigs a month,
including alt, misc, the big 8 and everything else, 12 gigs is
far more than someone who dl's mostly text should ever need.

On 2008-09-21, William Sommerwerck wrote:

There's lots wrong with dialup when you're downloading multi-megabyte
files.

I have no need to do that. (Of course others might need that capability
and they would require a faster connection.)

Yeah, I guess the interstate highways were a really lousy idea, too.
Eisenhower, that damned socialist.

The internet is of no real importance. Roads are. (As to whether the
Interstate Highway System was a good idea, or constitutional, that's
a discussion for a different place and time.)

I'm sure lots of people -- including business people -- would strongly
disagree.

Are you still living in the 17th century?

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The internet is of no real importance. Roads are. (As to whether the
Interstate Highway System was a good idea, or constitutional, that's
a discussion for a different place and time.)

I'm sure lots of people -- including business people -- would strongly
disagree.

Absolutely. A decent data link can reduce the amount of post etc
previously sent by road - and faster and at lower cost.

Whatever the pros and cons of private versus public finance one thing can
be sure, you don't want to let just one private company carry it out -
otherwise they are likely to try and benefit unreasonably from a monopoly
situation.

--
*A backward poet writes inverse.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:25:12 -0400, mm
wrote:

On 20 Sep 2008 23:43:01 GMT, Allodoxaphobia
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:00:47 -0400, mm wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:44:11 -0700, "nospam" wrote:

http://www.comcast.net/newsgroups/

I'm gonna miss these two groups more than most.

Thanks for all the help over the last 15+ years.

Read my sig.

... if you had one.

The post you replied to had one. Does it have to have a blank line or
label that says sig for you to be able to tell?

I didn't see a sig either. Perhaps your server is stripping it?
--


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article ,
mm wrote:
snippage about signature delimiter
But WADR I'm not convinced it's true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block says nothing about any
required delimiter.

Except it does--the last paragraph under "Email and Usenet" metions that
it "must be delimited from the body of the message by a single line
consisting of exactly two hyphens, followed by a space, followed by the
end of line...."

snip again

http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/docs/Usenet.html says only:
"Avoid long rambling signatures. Keep your sig short and simple.
MT-NewsWatcher encourages the "McQuary limit" for signatures-at most
four lines of at most 80 characters each; if you enter a longer sig in
the Personalities dialog, it will warn you. You cannot enter a sig
longer than 8 lines."

That's because MT-NewsWatcher automatically inserts the delimiter for
you. I know, as I use it and have it insert a signature. (It's a quite
nice newsreader program, by the way.)

I could keep looking, but I have other reasons to think a sig file
needs no delimiter.

It's a long-standing convention in Usenet that the signature should be
preceded by a dash-dash-space delimiter. I guess it's not "needed" in
the sense that you can send a message without one, but there are good
reasons to play along with the accepted rules, too. A great many
newsreaders will automatically trim off signatures thus demarked when
creating a followup message, for example.

--
Andrew Erickson

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot
lose." -- Jim Elliot

mm wrote:

A) There was no sig (as Google will verify.) It appeared as plain
text in the body of your message. Nothing to distinguish it as a
sig rather than just more of your post.

And why would that matter to the OP?

How was one to know where
your text stopped and your sig began?

Why does he have to know?

Because *you* instructed him to *read your sig*. If he looked for a sig,
he found none. You instructed him to read something that didn't exist.

On 2008-09-22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The internet is of no real importance. Roads are. (As to whether the
Interstate Highway System was a good idea, or constitutional, that's
a discussion for a different place and time.)

I'm sure lots of people -- including business people -- would strongly
disagree.

Absolutely. A decent data link can reduce the amount of post etc
previously sent by road - and faster and at lower cost.

paper mail is just the beginning. (dialup is sufficient for that)
a decent data link can reduce the number of people sent by road

Bye.
Jasen

Roger Blake wrote:

On 2008-09-21, William Sommerwerck wrote:
There's lots wrong with dialup when you're downloading multi-megabyte files.

I have no need to do that. (Of course others might need that capability
and they would require a faster connection.)

Yeah, I guess the interstate highways were a really lousy idea, too.
Eisenhower, that damned socialist.

The internet is of no real importance. Roads are.

Really ?

In some instances like teleworking the internet can REPLACE the road.

Graham

"Samuel M. Goldwasser" wrote:

Eeyore writes:
Don Bruder wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Bruder wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
nospam wrote:

http://www.comcast.net/newsgroups/

I suggest YOU drop comcast.

I, for one, would love to.

The problem:
What would you suggest I use for connectivity?

No alternative at all ? Cable or ADSL, whichever Comcast isn't. If none then
presumably the internet you already have ?

You install a 'news reader' program - the simpler the better IMHO, I use
Netscape
4.8, configure it and hey presto you have news.

Graham

The internet I already have is Comcast. Unless I drop back to the
slow-motion hell of dial-up, or move up to a multi-hundred-bucks-a-month
fractional T line, there simply IS no alternative. (I've looked into
that option, and no matter how I try to diddle the numbers, it just
plain ain't feasible - As a ballpark figure, I'd be laying out something
on the order of 30 grand for the install, and likely waiting for close
to a year for it to happen, before I saw so much as a single byte of
data traveling on it.)

Like I said: Ain't communications monopolies wonderful?

Were you the OP ?

Well you'll have to stick with comcast and shell out a few shillings for news. I
reckon Astraweb's $10 one-off pre-pay deal is good for many years for text groups.

I did that when UPenn dropped USENET, but then someone suggested aioe
(nntp.aioe.org) which is currently free, and seems to be just about as good.
And no sign-in passowrd.

Limited number of posts per day (not many) and NO cross-posting.

Graham

"Samuel M. Goldwasser" wrote:

Eeyore writes:
nospam wrote:

http://www.comcast.net/newsgroups/

I'm gonna miss these two groups more than most.

Thanks for all the help over the last 15+ years.

Go to astraweb. $10 non-expiring 25GB of downloads.

I did that when UPenn dropped USENET, but then someone suggested aioe
(nntp.aioe.org) which is currently free, and seems to be just about as good.
And no sign-in password.

OK for low volume users only.

I use it too sometimes.

Graham

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per Samuel M. Goldwasser:
I did that when UPenn dropped USENET, but then someone suggested aioe
(nntp.aioe.org) which is currently free, and seems to be just about as good.
And no sign-in password.

Individual.net has been good to me for a few years now.

It's about $18 per year - close enough to free for me.

They also tolerate Usenet abusers. One reason I HATE them.

Graham

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:07:15 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
The problem:
What would you suggest I use for connectivity?

No alternative at all ? Cable or ADSL, whichever Comcast isn't. If none then
presumably the internet you already have ?

ADSL is unavailable in much of the country, including many places that
aren't nearly as isolated as one might think.

Tssk. But then the UK has the advantage of being a smaller place. And telecoms
(including internet service) is highly deregulated.

For example I have 2 physical phone lines. One can provide ADSL, the other has
cable attached. If I felt the need to combine the two (and this can be done) I
could be essentially 'fault tolerant' and obtain speeds in in the 40 Mbps region.

Graham

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The internet is of no real importance. Roads are. (As to whether the
Interstate Highway System was a good idea, or constitutional, that's
a discussion for a different place and time.)

I'm sure lots of people -- including business people -- would strongly
disagree.

Absolutely. A decent data link can reduce the amount of post etc
previously sent by road - and faster and at lower cost.

Whatever the pros and cons of private versus public finance one thing can
be sure, you don't want to let just one private company carry it out -
otherwise they are likely to try and benefit unreasonably from a monopoly
situation.

Which is precisely the reason why having the government build the
infrastructure with public dollars makes so much sense. It encourages
competition and potentially keeps costs down to the consumer..

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The internet is of no real importance. Roads are. (As to whether the
Interstate Highway System was a good idea, or constitutional, that's
a discussion for a different place and time.)

I'm sure lots of people -- including business people -- would strongly
disagree.

Absolutely. A decent data link can reduce the amount of post etc
previously sent by road - and faster and at lower cost.

Whatever the pros and cons of private versus public finance one thing can
be sure, you don't want to let just one private company carry it out -
otherwise they are likely to try and benefit unreasonably from a monopoly
situation.

Which is precisely the reason why having the government build the
infrastructure with public dollars makes so much sense. It encourages
competition and potentially keeps costs down to the consumer..

Ummm... Have you forgotten that you're talking about the government
here?

"Government" and "keeping costs down" are mutually exclusive concepts.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:32:22 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2008-09-21, mm wrote:
I have dsl for a year now. WRT email and Usenet, the extra speed
means next to nothing. Its good that webpages are faster, but I used
to dl webpages while reading my email or the newsgroups.

I still do almost everything from a Unix shell, so the extra speed would
not be that important to me. Inexpensive DSL is not available in my area
and I'm too cheap to pay for cable service.

I know that's called cheap by others, or you when you are being
self-effacing, but I think you're spending your money wisely. I'll bet
you won't ave to go on welfare when you're 75.

What is nice about dsl is it's easier to play radio; and even tv such
as the political conventions, where it started even earlier than
public tv. But I don't have cable tv

Oh, if cheap DSL were available here I'd probably get it. But to me
the extra speed is just not worth the price of the more expensive-type
broadband connections.

I agree with you. I held off until it was 15 dollars a month. At the
time, I convinced myself that they wouldn't raise it mch when the 2
years were up, but I don't know that.

This is for verizon dsl (the slower of the 2 dsl speeds they offer,
but it's fast enough for me). Comcast cable used to be about the same
price when verizon dsl was much higher. But when dsl went down,
comcast was much more expensive. I think those were my only two
choices except for satellite I suppose which I'mn sure is also very
expensive. I'm intrigued by the cell phone internet, but it was
expensive too, and I would only use it about 2 weeks every ten years.
I have a laptop that I took on a long semi-business trip, where I used
netcafes and the wireless in the dorm I stayed in (at age 60), but
when Im in the US, I only use it for showing tourist pictures to
people. I do all my other computer stuff at home.

They put in fios here about 3 months ago, and based on the colored
dots on teh grass, it seems at least one of my neighbors has
subscribed. I live in a middle middle income townhose n'hood and I
don't think anyone here can really afford it, but some will buy it.

I have nothing against fiber-optic per se but am not willing to
pay for it. The U.S. is pretty much broke at this point and it's hard
to view that as any kind of priority for the use of public funds.

I didn't think the public was paying for any of it, unless a household
signs up!!

--
A tribute to Erols/RCN/Starpower which took away newsgroups,
without giving any notice, in advance or when they did it!!

And a real tribute to https://www.forteinc.com/apn/subscribe.php
which starts at 3 dollars for 12 gigs a month,
including alt, misc, the big 8 and everything else, 12 gigs is
far more than someone who dl's mostly text should ever need.

Which is precisely the reason why having the government build the
infrastructure with public dollars makes so much sense. It encourages
competition and potentially keeps costs down to the consumer..

Ummm... Have you forgotten that you're talking about the government
here?

"Government" and "keeping costs down" are mutually exclusive concepts.

Think about what I'm suggesting before objecting.

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

Which is precisely the reason why having the government build the
infrastructure with public dollars makes so much sense. It encourages
competition and potentially keeps costs down to the consumer..

Ummm... Have you forgotten that you're talking about the government
here?

"Government" and "keeping costs down" are mutually exclusive concepts.

Think about what I'm suggesting before objecting.

Oh... Got it. Didn't notice the sarcasm the first time around.





Q: What's an elephant?
A: A mouse, built [to government specifications/by the government].

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

"Don Bruder" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

Which is precisely the reason why having the government build the
infrastructure with public dollars makes so much sense. It encourages
competition and potentially keeps costs down to the consumer..

Ummm... Have you forgotten that you're talking about the government
here?

"Government" and "keeping costs down" are mutually exclusive concepts.

Think about what I'm suggesting before objecting.

Oh... Got it. Didn't notice the sarcasm the first time around.

There wasn't any. There are some things government should do, including
putting infrastructures in place that market-based businesses can make use
of. It benefits everyone.

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

"Don Bruder" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

Which is precisely the reason why having the government build the
infrastructure with public dollars makes so much sense. It encourages
competition and potentially keeps costs down to the consumer..

Ummm... Have you forgotten that you're talking about the government
here?

"Government" and "keeping costs down" are mutually exclusive concepts.

Think about what I'm suggesting before objecting.

Oh... Got it. Didn't notice the sarcasm the first time around.

There wasn't any. There are some things government should do, including
putting infrastructures in place that market-based businesses can make use
of. It benefits everyone.

Government exists to serve me, the individual citizen, not businesses.
Period.

The government as it stands today is failing miserably on all counts
when it comes to serving the citizen. On the other hand, it's doing a
damn fine job of screwing them over in favor of businesses.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

In article ,
Don Bruder wrote:
There wasn't any. There are some things government should do,
including putting infrastructures in place that market-based
businesses can make use of. It benefits everyone.

Government exists to serve me, the individual citizen, not businesses.
Period.

That's the whole point; give a business the monopoly of providing that
infrastructure and the main aim of that business is to make money - not
serve the citizen. Competition is what keeps business in check (hopefully)
and with this sort of project there can be none.

The government as it stands today is failing miserably on all counts
when it comes to serving the citizen. On the other hand, it's doing a
damn fine job of screwing them over in favor of businesses.

Seems to be governments world wide...

--
*What boots up must come down *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Don Bruder" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

"Don Bruder" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

Which is precisely the reason why having the government build the
infrastructure with public dollars makes so much sense. It
encourages
competition and potentially keeps costs down to the consumer..

Ummm... Have you forgotten that you're talking about the
government
here?

"Government" and "keeping costs down" are mutually exclusive
concepts.

Think about what I'm suggesting before objecting.

Oh... Got it. Didn't notice the sarcasm the first time around.

There wasn't any. There are some things government should do, including
putting infrastructures in place that market-based businesses can make
use
of. It benefits everyone.

Government exists to serve me, the individual citizen, not businesses.
Period.

The government as it stands today is failing miserably on all counts
when it comes to serving the citizen. On the other hand, it's doing a
damn fine job of screwing them over in favor of businesses.

True, but that's not what I'm talking about. Imagine what transportation in
the US would be like if the interstate highways had been built by private
interests. Both businesses and individuals would be paying outrageous tolls
to drive from state to state.

Similarly, a government-installed fiber-optic system -- for every house,
every business -- would permit _multiple_ companies to provide high-speed
communication, instead of the near-monopoly that currently exists. That
means competition, and (hopefully) better service at a lower price.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Don Bruder wrote:
There wasn't any. There are some things government should do,
including putting infrastructures in place that market-based
businesses can make use of. It benefits everyone.

Government exists to serve me, the individual citizen, not businesses.
Period.

That's the whole point; give a business the monopoly of providing that
infrastructure and the main aim of that business is to make money - not
serve the citizen. Competition is what keeps business in check (hopefully)
and with this sort of project there can be none.

Seems we've had this discussion before. Thanks for understanding and
agreeing.