Re: admin: can this disgusting stuff be deleted?
Brad Kunkel wrote: snip . What I guess I don't get is why it's not organized; not a > central authority but a code of ethics. If Usenet ever becomes mainstream, > governments will likely get involved and screw it up. It's not organised for historical reasons. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember when WAN connections were a) Slow b) Expensive c) Mostly dialup d) Rare Info was distributed once to a server near you and then read by local users. News was one way that this happened, and you just got your news from your upstream server who got it from their upstream server ..... a long way upstream servers co-operated to make sure that all messages were copied everywhere. Depending on the route to you messages would get hoplesly out of sync, which is one reason why threaded newsclient were created Because server A would serve sever B through Z and vice versa depending which host got a particular message first it became almost mandetory to carry all messages/groups ( sometimes excluding binary groups because disk was EXPENSIVE) and some of the porn groups, even if you didn't have local users subscribed to some of those groups, because others depended on your feed. HTH
Clive Eisen wrote: > Brad Kunkel wrote: > snip > > . What I guess I don't get is why it's not organized; not a >> central authority but a code of ethics. If Usenet ever becomes >> mainstream, governments will likely get involved and screw it up. > > It's not organised for historical reasons. Maybe you aren't old enough > to remember when WAN connections were > a) Slow > b) Expensive > c) Mostly dialup > d) Rare > > Info was distributed once to a server near you and then read by local > users. News was one way that this happened, and you just got your news > from your upstream server who got it from their upstream server ..... > a long way upstream servers co-operated to make sure that all messages > were copied everywhere. Depending on the route to you messages would get > hoplesly out of sync, which is one reason why threaded newsclient were > created > > Because server A would serve sever B through Z and vice versa depending > which host got a particular message first it became almost mandetory to > carry all messages/groups ( sometimes excluding binary groups because > disk was EXPENSIVE) and some of the porn groups, even if you didn't have > local users subscribed to some of those groups, because others depended > on your feed. > > HTH You are very mature man, I can say. Am wondering can usenet become AGAIN mainstream? -- Enor
"Clive Eisen" <clive@serendipita.com> wrote in message news:40940d41$0$31709$fa0fcedb@lovejoy.zen.co.uk... > > It's not organised for historical reasons. Maybe you aren't old enough > to remember when WAN connections were > a) Slow > b) Expensive > c) Mostly dialup > d) Rare > Thanks, Clive. I'm old enough to have played around with FidoNet but never paid much attention to the technical aspects. After thinking it through, I now agree with you and the other respondents that nothing can or should be done. I'll just filter shawcable.net and optonline.net on my end. Regards, Brad Kunkel Integrated Business, Inc.