Other servers

98 Guy expressed an opinion:
MEB wrote:

since Microsoft _WAS_ the maintainer - the MASTER SERVER for
distribution content *worldwide*...

You can post no evidence that microsoft was the "maintainer" or "master
server" for the posts in these (microsoft.public) newsgroups.

If that was true, then any posts made via external servers would have to
show up first on the microsoft server, and the PATH of those posts would
have to indicate that they were sourced or routed through microsoft's
server.

And Microsoft could excercise some degree of moderation or censorship if
that were the case. Microsoft could identify certain posters (or be
made aware of them) and simply prevent their posts from propagating out
of their "master" server once it receives those posts.

But none of that happens.

Microsoft is a PEER in this context, as all usenet servers are peers
with each other. You are reluctant to admit this, because you somehow
want to believe that Microsoft holds some authoritative role over the
microsoft.public hierarchy of usenet newsgroups. This reluctance blinds
you to having a true understanding of how usenet works, how servers peer
with each other, and how posts are propagated between peers.

I have copied this post to alt.free.newsservers and news.admin.misc for
others to comment on your technical understanding of this situation.

Dimwit, this is a first, at least from my experience, this has
NEVER occurred before... are *YOU* going supply the servers AND
staff to maintain the _entire_ microsoft.public hierarchy? No,
I thought not...

And they can comment on that as well.

Apparently, "MEB" doesn't understand *propagated* on Usenet. ;-)

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.free.newsservers.]
On 2010-05-08, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

since Microsoft _WAS_ the maintainer - the MASTER SERVER for
distribution content *worldwide*...

[...]

I have copied this post to alt.free.newsservers and news.admin.misc for
others to comment on your technical understanding of this situation.

Dimwit, this is a first, at least from my experience, this has
NEVER occurred before... are *YOU* going supply the servers AND
staff to maintain the _entire_ microsoft.public hierarchy? No,
I thought not...

And they can comment on that as well.

Newcomers to newsgroups should start here

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/newsgroup.htm

and here

http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/, the Official Home Page of the
newsgroup called news.newusers.questions.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.free.newsservers.]
On 2010-05-08, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

since Microsoft _WAS_ the maintainer - the MASTER SERVER for
distribution content *worldwide*...

[...]

I have copied this post to alt.free.newsservers and news.admin.misc for
others to comment on your technical understanding of this situation.

Dimwit, this is a first, at least from my experience, this has
NEVER occurred before... are *YOU* going supply the servers AND
staff to maintain the _entire_ microsoft.public hierarchy? No,
I thought not...

And they can comment on that as well.

Newcomers to newsgroups should start here

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/newsgroup.htm

and here

http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/, the Official Home Page of the
newsgroup called news.newusers.questions.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

On 05/08/2010 12:41 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

since Microsoft _WAS_ the maintainer - the MASTER SERVER for
distribution content *worldwide*...

You can post no evidence that microsoft was the "maintainer" or "master
server" for the posts in these (microsoft.public) newsgroups.

If that was true, then any posts made via external servers would have to
show up first on the microsoft server, and the PATH of those posts would
have to indicate that they were sourced or routed through microsoft's
server.

And Microsoft could excercise some degree of moderation or censorship if
that were the case. Microsoft could identify certain posters (or be
made aware of them) and simply prevent their posts from propagating out
of their "master" server once it receives those posts.

But none of that happens.

Guys and gals, on more time.

Look at the topography for Usenet and the Internet [and those links I
posted to Sunny] and you might begin to understand how this works.
Secondary sources transfer some messages among themselves then send
that to the maintainer, in this case Microsoft. Microsoft has (tens of)
thousands of servers connected to it 24 hours a day, seven days a week
365 1/4 days a year receiving these messages FROM the maintainer.
Microsoft then POSTS the messages *it wants* INTO its own public offered
service msnews.
I demonstrated this aspect/factor to *98 Guy* and this group previously
by posting THROUGH/USING Microsoft's NNTP *direct to this group*
service; messages I KNEW would *not* be accepted *ON* Microsoft's
forums, yet were propagated to various secondary "peers" who accepted
that type of message. *THEY* got the message because they got it via the
maintainer, Microsoft; it DID NOT appear here because it failed
Microsoft's own posting standards within these groups.
Public msnews is being closed as is the public maintainer end. That
ENDS worldwide distribution. The "peering" no longer exists.

Microsoft has also posted official legal *Notice* of what is required,
compliance, these groups BELONG to it, nothing else matters.

Now use your brains, and stop being ignorant.



Microsoft is a PEER in this context, as all usenet servers are peers
with each other. You are reluctant to admit this, because you somehow
want to believe that Microsoft holds some authoritative role over the
microsoft.public hierarchy of usenet newsgroups. This reluctance blinds
you to having a true understanding of how usenet works, how servers peer
with each other, and how posts are propagated between peers.

I have copied this post to alt.free.newsservers and news.admin.misc for
others to comment on your technical understanding of this situation.

Dimwit, this is a first, at least from my experience, this has
NEVER occurred before... are *YOU* going supply the servers AND
staff to maintain the _entire_ microsoft.public hierarchy? No,
I thought not...

And they can comment on that as well.


--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On 05/08/2010 12:41 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

since Microsoft _WAS_ the maintainer - the MASTER SERVER for
distribution content *worldwide*...

You can post no evidence that microsoft was the "maintainer" or "master
server" for the posts in these (microsoft.public) newsgroups.

If that was true, then any posts made via external servers would have to
show up first on the microsoft server, and the PATH of those posts would
have to indicate that they were sourced or routed through microsoft's
server.

And Microsoft could excercise some degree of moderation or censorship if
that were the case. Microsoft could identify certain posters (or be
made aware of them) and simply prevent their posts from propagating out
of their "master" server once it receives those posts.

But none of that happens.

Guys and gals, on more time.

Look at the topography for Usenet and the Internet [and those links I
posted to Sunny] and you might begin to understand how this works.
Secondary sources transfer some messages among themselves then send
that to the maintainer, in this case Microsoft. Microsoft has (tens of)
thousands of servers connected to it 24 hours a day, seven days a week
365 1/4 days a year receiving these messages FROM the maintainer.
Microsoft then POSTS the messages *it wants* INTO its own public offered
service msnews.
I demonstrated this aspect/factor to *98 Guy* and this group previously
by posting THROUGH/USING Microsoft's NNTP *direct to this group*
service; messages I KNEW would *not* be accepted *ON* Microsoft's
forums, yet were propagated to various secondary "peers" who accepted
that type of message. *THEY* got the message because they got it via the
maintainer, Microsoft; it DID NOT appear here because it failed
Microsoft's own posting standards within these groups.
Public msnews is being closed as is the public maintainer end. That
ENDS worldwide distribution. The "peering" no longer exists.

Microsoft has also posted official legal *Notice* of what is required,
compliance, these groups BELONG to it, nothing else matters.

Now use your brains, and stop being ignorant.



Microsoft is a PEER in this context, as all usenet servers are peers
with each other. You are reluctant to admit this, because you somehow
want to believe that Microsoft holds some authoritative role over the
microsoft.public hierarchy of usenet newsgroups. This reluctance blinds
you to having a true understanding of how usenet works, how servers peer
with each other, and how posts are propagated between peers.

I have copied this post to alt.free.newsservers and news.admin.misc for
others to comment on your technical understanding of this situation.

Dimwit, this is a first, at least from my experience, this has
NEVER occurred before... are *YOU* going supply the servers AND
staff to maintain the _entire_ microsoft.public hierarchy? No,
I thought not...

And they can comment on that as well.


--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On 05/08/2010 04:58 PM, Robb wrote:
MEB wrote:


Guys and gals, on more time.


Flibberdejibbits. That explains *everything*.

Except for the Cabal [tinc].




Uhuh, so how deep are your pockets... deeper than Microsoft's?
It isn't as if hosts/services are hidden...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On 05/08/2010 04:58 PM, Robb wrote:
MEB wrote:


Guys and gals, on more time.


Flibberdejibbits. That explains *everything*.

Except for the Cabal [tinc].




Uhuh, so how deep are your pockets... deeper than Microsoft's?
It isn't as if hosts/services are hidden...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

MEB wrote:

Uhuh, so how deep are your pockets... deeper than Microsoft's?
It isn't as if hosts/services are hidden...

Why would you think that it would cost *more* to operate a usenet server
and carry the microsoft.public set of newsgroups *after* Microsoft turns
off it's server?

MEB wrote:

Uhuh, so how deep are your pockets... deeper than Microsoft's?
It isn't as if hosts/services are hidden...

Why would you think that it would cost *more* to operate a usenet server
and carry the microsoft.public set of newsgroups *after* Microsoft turns
off it's server?

On 05/08/2010 05:17 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

Uhuh, so how deep are your pockets... deeper than Microsoft's?
It isn't as if hosts/services are hidden...

Why would you think that it would cost *more* to operate a usenet server
and carry the microsoft.public set of newsgroups *after* Microsoft turns
off it's server?

Because that makes you liable for doing so...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---