Re: Proposal - Reinstate alt.usenet.reposts

Hi Adam,

I hope you're doing well.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 14:22:48 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> The terminology is a big deal because the word "creation" has always
> misled proponents into thinking that newgrouping is all he has to do.
> Because the proponent is expected to send his own control message and
> then follow up publicizing the group asking would-be users to request
> its creation locally, a newgroup message doesn't create a newsgroup. In
> the past,

I'm not going to argue with you on this point because you probably know 
more than I do, but I can give you an example where this kind of thing 
thing does happen. When the control messages for the new mozilla support 
groups were sent out, my server automatically added them server to my 
active and newsgroups files. I was going to add these groups manually but 
I was surprised that they were already there. Anyway, what I'm getting at 
is that it looks like with the current version of INN, a control file is 
really is all you need unless your server is set to ignore them.

>>It was never deleted via a control message according to the isc.org
>>archives and it is currently a part of the isc.org newsgroup list but
>>with an unfortunate description.
> 
> There are no servers known to process rmgroup messages in alt
> automatically. Trusted rmgroupers were long before my time, and Jay
> Denebeim who played with rmgroups after they left has been gone for a
> couple of decades too.

My point here is that I'm not trying to create a new group. I'm just 
asking server admins to add it to their list of newsgroups.

> What you are doing is called retrochartering. It's really not considered
> to be legitimate. Why? There were a few instances in the '90s in which a
> few people in specific newsgroups carried out vendettas by changing
> charters back and forth to charter thump and generally declare each
> other off topic.

The charter itself is not being touched. I think it's great the way it is. 
However, the description talks about a dependent newsgroup that I have no 
desire to recreate. Maybe that's bad form according to good newsgroup 
housekeeping, but is it really that big of a deal when the desire is just 
to get new activity on an otherwise defunct group?

> 
> group.name<tab>Brief description.
> 
> You SHOULD NOT substitute a series of spaces for the tab character.
> However, INN will replace it with a tab character.

I literally just copied and pasted it from the archive. It looks like the 
text files in the isc archives use spaces instead of tabs.

> Posting to alt.config is not an effective way to publicize reviving this
> newsgroup. I'd just mention that you are trying to revive the newsgroup
> in a .sigfile, asking people to request its creation and read it.
> ANYWHERE you find a nostalgic thread, post a followup to mention what
> you are trying to do.

I'll take your suggestion and I'll also advertise it in 
alt.folklore.computer if the occasion comes up. That group is almost 
completely nostalgia, though seemingly mostly for old hardware.

I originally posted about this in alt.fan.usenet. That group is sort of 
the unofficial home of the r/usenet subreddit on the actual Usenet. Some 
of the folks there are really interested in Usenet history like I am. 
Someone there tried to get eternal-september to carry the group. It took a 
while and they do now, but one of the objections is why would they carry 
it if wasn't discussed in alt.config first? Since I have some free time 
this week, I took the time to write up this article explaining what this 
newsgroup is and the fact that it isn't just something new.

> I should also point out that all we do in alt.config is discuss
> charters. And there is no "we"; I'm probably the last one who might make
> a comment. Prior to the three Mozilla replacement newsgroups, it had
> been at least four years since a serious proponent stopped by.

I get that. For a long time, alt.config had an even worse spam problem 
than news.groups. It's good to see that it at least has a little bit of on-
topic activity.

> Such is the state of alt.* these days.

Oh well, I still prefer alt.* more than free.*. At least there are signs 
of real life here. Now if we could only get people to follow through with 
their suggestions for new Big-8 groups, that would make me very happy.