What's up with Google???

[Kingfish]

3-4 times in the last week I've posted replies only to get the Oops!
message and that the page is unavailable (reply got wiped out). This
after a masterfully crafted & often witty response on my part which the
group was denied <tongue-in-cheek mode off> Seriously, is anyone else
seeing this? Most annoying...

[gpsman]

Kingfish wrote: <brevity snip>
> 3-4 times in the last week I've posted replies only to get the Oops!
> message and that the page is unavailable (reply got wiped out).

Prolly not wiped out, just hit the "back" button (or Ctrl + L arrow).

> Seriously, is anyone else seeing this? Most annoying...

Yes, and yes it is. I have to hit "Reply" and "Preview" twice, every
time, after getting the same message... and "Edit message" if used,
sometimes "Post" as well.

But, checking it now by hitting "Preview" and it works, first time.

You must have fixed it. Thanks.
-----

- gpsman

[[email protected]]

"Kingfish" > wrote:
> 3-4 times in the last week I've posted replies only to get the Oops!
> message and that the page is unavailable (reply got wiped out). This
> after a masterfully crafted & often witty response on my part which the
> group was denied <tongue-in-cheek mode off> Seriously, is anyone else
> seeing this? Most annoying...

I don't think it's Google, I think it's Usenet, although I admittedly
don't know how it all works well enough to even guess what the problem
is. But I don't use Google for the groups except as a last resort, and
in almost 10 years of using Newswatcher to access/post to newsgroups
with *no* problems whatsoever, in the last week I've had similar error
messages and some down-time, too. ??

[Jay Honeck]

> 3-4 times in the last week I've posted replies only to get the Oops!
> message and that the page is unavailable (reply got wiped out). This
> after a masterfully crafted & often witty response on my part which the
> group was denied <tongue-in-cheek mode off> Seriously, is anyone else
> seeing this?

Yep. Their little glitch has wiped out several of my most artful
responses...

:-(

I've taken to highlighting everything and "Control-C"-ing before
clicking on "Post Message", just in case everything gets sucked into
the Google ether...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Yep. Their little glitch has wiped out several of my most artful
> responses...
>
> :-(
>
> I've taken to highlighting everything and "Control-C"-ing before
> clicking on "Post Message", just in case everything gets sucked into
> the Google ether...

Jay, considering what you give (well written aviation anecdotes) and take
(new hotel guests) out of Usenet, you should consider a commercial account.

Text-only, or download-limited accounts are available for US $2 to $4 per
month, which is one less beer a month (<G>), and certainly more reliable
than free Usenet providers, Google included.


--
Peter

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:

> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>
>>Yep. Their little glitch has wiped out several of my most artful
>>responses...
>>
>>:-(
>>
>>I've taken to highlighting everything and "Control-C"-ing before
>>clicking on "Post Message", just in case everything gets sucked into
>>the Google ether...
>
>
> Jay, considering what you give (well written aviation anecdotes) and take
> (new hotel guests) out of Usenet, you should consider a commercial account.

I don't get it. Does Jay not have an ISP that provides him with an
email account? If so just use your email client to setup a newsgroup
account. What's so hard about that?

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> If so just use your email client to setup a newsgroup
> account. What's so hard about that?

His ISP probably does not offer a newsgroup server? Many these days do
not.


--
Peter

[Jay Honeck]

> I don't get it. Does Jay not have an ISP that provides him with an
> email account? If so just use your email client to setup a newsgroup
> account. What's so hard about that?

The exact details of why this doesn't work are lost in the mist of time
for me, but here's the deal:

Our email and internet service provider is Mediacom, the local cable
network. At home, we have cable modem service, and THERE we can use
Outlook Express to access email and newsgroups, if we wish.

At the hotel, however, cable modem service proved so unreliable that I
eventually tossed Mediacom out on their ear, and went with Qwest DSL
service. For extra money, I can get usenet and email access through
them, but it just didn't seem to make any sense to pay extra $$ just so
I can screw around on newsgroups.

Thus, while at the hotel I have to access my email via Mediacom's
web-based email system, and usenet through web-based sites like Google
Groups. If there's a way to access usenet directly WITHOUT paying
this extra fee to Qwest, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert M. Gary]

Newps wrote:
> Peter R. wrote:
> I don't get it. Does Jay not have an ISP that provides him with an
> email account? If so just use your email client to setup a newsgroup
> account. What's so hard about that?

An ISP's account is usually pretty limited in bytes and what groups
they support. My ISP is pretty limited. I bought my own commercial
account for $7/month at Giganews.

-Robert

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> For extra money, I can get usenet and email access through
> them, but it just didn't seem to make any sense to pay extra $$ just so
> I can screw around on newsgroups.

Screw around?

Hypothetically, here, if I owned an aviation hotel my participation in the
aviation newsgroups would be considered a marketing expense, and therefore
the commercial Usenet monthly fee would be a business tax deduction. Thus,
the after tax expense would be around $1.50 per month for a reliable
connection to Usenet. Wouldn't take but one new customer per year to
justify that expense, no?

In your case, there is no doubt that you are getting hotel guests from your
participation in Usenet, as that is how I ended up there for one night last
summer and hopefully a longer stay sometime next summer.


--
Peter

[Skywise]

wrote in news:Xmnushal8y-3388F5.08453830102006
@news.phx.highwinds-media.com:

> "Kingfish" > wrote:
>> 3-4 times in the last week I've posted replies only to get the Oops!
>> message and that the page is unavailable (reply got wiped out). This
>> after a masterfully crafted & often witty response on my part which the
>> group was denied <tongue-in-cheek mode off> Seriously, is anyone else
>> seeing this? Most annoying...
>
> I don't think it's Google, I think it's Usenet, although I admittedly
> don't know how it all works well enough to even guess what the problem
> is.
<Snipola>

Google is nothing more than a web based front end for posting articles
on usenet. Usenet itself is totally independant. The problem described
is almost 100% surely Google's problem. Usenet does not have any means
of saying that a page is unavailable. In fact, there are no "pages" on
usenet to not be found in the first place.

I suggest a gander over to wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

Towards the bottom is a sectionon web interfaces, including Google.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Peter R.]

Martin Hotze > wrote:

> F****! I not only once offered free usenet access to my newsserver.

Very kind of you. After using Google's web interface one year while
working at a place that blocked the Usenet port, I discovered I much prefer
the agility and reliability of a client-side news reader.

--
Peter

[Jim Logajan]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> If there's a way to access usenet directly WITHOUT paying
> this extra fee to Qwest, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Close to free:

http://news.individual.net/

(Never tried it myself, though.)

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:21:34 -0000, Jim Logajan > wrote in >:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> If there's a way to access usenet directly WITHOUT paying
>> this extra fee to Qwest, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
>
>Close to free:
>
>http://news.individual.net/
>
>(Never tried it myself, though.)

Here is a list of ~70 news service providers:

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:news_providers

FWIW, I'm presently on AstraWeb's $10 for 25 GB downloaded.
There have been a few hiccups in the setup, but (so far),
I'm a happy and satisfied customer.

Marty
--
The Big-8 hierarchies (comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk)
are under new management. See http://www.big-8.org for details.

[[email protected]]

Skywise > wrote:
> The problem described
> is almost 100% surely Google's problem.

Well, it can't be "100% surely Google's problem" because I haven't
accessed these groups with Google in the past month or so, and
Newsreader, that was previously (10 years or so) 100% reliable has also
been giving me "can't access" errors sporatically in the last week.
Coincidence? I doubt it.

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>I don't get it. Does Jay not have an ISP that provides him with an
>>email account? If so just use your email client to setup a newsgroup
>>account. What's so hard about that?
>
>
> What has an emailaccount to do with a usenet account?



I get them both from my ISP. They are transparent, simply another
account listed on my email program.

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>Peter R. wrote:
>>I don't get it. Does Jay not have an ISP that provides him with an
>>email account? If so just use your email client to setup a newsgroup
>>account. What's so hard about that?
>
>
> An ISP's account is usually pretty limited in bytes and what groups
> they support.

I get my high speed internet from my local cable company(Approx 8 gig
speed) and I have no idea if they are limiting the number of newsgroups,
there are over 50,000 listed. There are no limits as far as I can tell
about the postings.

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> I get them both from my ISP. They are transparent, simply another
> account listed on my email program.

Right, and that account contains your user id, password, and your ISP's
named Usenet server. Note that it is highly probably that your ISP's
Usenet server is different than their inbound and outbound email servers.


--
Peter

[Robert M. Gary]

Newps wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> I get my high speed internet from my local cable company(Approx 8 gig
> speed) and I have no idea if they are limiting the number of newsgroups,
> there are over 50,000 listed. There are no limits as far as I can tell
> about the postings.

Usually the ISP's will filter out groups that have a lot of
copyrigthted material. At one point I was into watching movies at home
before they hit the theater. Its been a while since I've had time to
watch movies so I pretty much gave that up.
However, for a business offering USNET to his customers, it might be
good to have a commercial account like giganews.

-Robert

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
>> The problem described
>> is almost 100% surely Google's problem.
>
> Well, it can't be "100% surely Google's problem" because I haven't
> accessed these groups with Google in the past month or so, and
> Newsreader, that was previously (10 years or so) 100% reliable has also
> been giving me "can't access" errors sporatically in the last week.
> Coincidence? I doubt it.

Doubt all you want. Google's troubles cannot possibly be related to your
own, if you are not using Google to post.

You are using Cox's news server to post to Usenet. If you get an error,
it's because your news reader (NewsWatcher on Mac OS X) failed to
communicate with the Cox news server.

On the other hand, someone having problems posting with Google is dealing
with some failure of their web browser to communicate with Google's web
servers.

In neither case are you directly connected to "Usenet". You are relying on
a third party to do that communication for you, and you would not ever see
errors that happened during that subsequent communication. The only errors
you might see are when your news client (news reader or browser) fails to
correctly interact with your news provider (Cox's servers or Google's
servers). And a problem with Cox's servers won't cause any sort of issue
with someone using Google's servers, no vice a versa.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Peter R. wrote:
>> Jay, considering what you give (well written aviation anecdotes) and take
>> (new hotel guests) out of Usenet, you should consider a commercial
>> account.
>
> I don't get it. Does Jay not have an ISP that provides him with an email
> account? If so just use your email client to setup a newsgroup account.
> What's so hard about that?

HE DOES! Or rather, he has an ISP that provides him a *news* account (along
with the email account they also provide...the two are not the same, nor
having one imply having the other).

I tried to explain that to him already. He apparently just doesn't want to
listen. There's absolutely no good reason he shouldn't be able to use the
news server account that he *already has* with his home Mediacom account,
even though he's connected through the Internet via his business Qwest DSL
account.

The only complication is that if he wants consistent access from both
places, he needs to carry a USB drive back and forth on which to store his
local news files. But that would be true even if he was using a news
account provided by Qwest.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> HE DOES! Or rather, he has an ISP that provides him a *news* account (along
> with the email account they also provide...the two are not the same, nor
> having one imply having the other).
>
> I tried to explain that to him already. He apparently just doesn't want to
> listen. There's absolutely no good reason he shouldn't be able to use the
> news server account that he *already has* with his home Mediacom account,
> even though he's connected through the Internet via his business Qwest DSL
> account.

Well, Pete, you explained that it *could* be done. I don't remember
you explaining HOW to do it -- but if I missed that, I apologize.

How can I access a Mediacom news account from a Qwest internet
connection?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination:

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> How can I access a Mediacom news account from a Qwest internet
> connection?

The same way you do it from home.

My apologies if that wasn't clear before.

[Eduardo K.[_1_]]

In article . com>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>Thus, while at the hotel I have to access my email via Mediacom's
>web-based email system, and usenet through web-based sites like Google
>Groups. If there's a way to access usenet directly WITHOUT paying
>this extra fee to Qwest, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
>

I can give you free access to one of my servers.


--
Eduardo K. | To put a pipe in byte mode,
http://www.carfun.cl | type PIPE_TYPE_BYTE.
http://e.nn.cl | (from the Visual C++ help file.)

[Eduardo K.[_1_]]

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:
>"Peter R." > wrote:
>
>> > F****! I not only once offered free usenet access to my newsserver.
>>
>> Very kind of you.
>
>You're welcome.
>
>We have more than 30 feeds up and running.
>the server is text only (right now) and we don't carry too many groups.
>more details here: <http://www.hotze.com/index.php?page=newsfeed-peering>
>

I'll send you a peering request right away...


--
Eduardo K. | To put a pipe in byte mode,
http://www.carfun.cl | type PIPE_TYPE_BYTE.
http://e.nn.cl | (from the Visual C++ help file.)

[Jay Honeck]

> > How can I access a Mediacom news account from a Qwest internet
> > connection?
>
> The same way you do it from home.
>
> My apologies if that wasn't clear before.

So, I go to Outlook Express and enter in all the pertinent Mediacom
information for their news server, and *voila* -- I can access their
mail server via Qwest, using Outlook Express here at the hotel?

That's so easy, it can't possibly work.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Logajan]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> So, I go to Outlook Express and enter in all the pertinent Mediacom
> information for their news server, and *voila* -- I can access their
> mail server via Qwest, using Outlook Express here at the hotel?
>
> That's so easy, it can't possibly work.

It might not - depends on what authentication mechanism Mediacom uses to
make sure non-subscribers aren't accessing their servers. One way some
providers do this is by denying access to any IP addresses outside the ones
they "own" or manage. If there is username/password info you are required
to enter for access to Mediacom, then you _may_ be able to access
Mediacom's Usenet servers from a Qwest assigned IP address. Otherwise it
seems unlikely it would work.

[[email protected]]

> >> The problem described
> >> is almost 100% surely Google's problem.

Xmnushal8y:
> > Well, it can't be "100% surely Google's problem" because I haven't
> > accessed these groups with Google in the past month or so, and
> > Newsreader, that was previously (10 years or so) 100% reliable has also
> > been giving me "can't access" errors sporatically in the last week.
> > Coincidence? I doubt it.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> Doubt all you want. Google's troubles cannot possibly be related to your
> own, if you are not using Google to post.

I didn't *say* my problem was related to Google's...just that whatever
the problem *is* accessing Usenet in this past week or so, it isn't
"surely 100% Google's problem" or the rest of us wouldn't be
experiencing the same thing using other methods of accessing Usenet.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > How can I access a Mediacom news account from a Qwest internet
>> > connection?
>>
>> The same way you do it from home.
>>
>> My apologies if that wasn't clear before.
>
> So, I go to Outlook Express and enter in all the pertinent Mediacom
> information for their news server, and *voila* -- I can access their
> mail server via Qwest, using Outlook Express here at the hotel?
>
> That's so easy, it can't possibly work.

Well, if you try to access the news using your mail server, no...that won't
work. :) You need to use the news server information, to access their
*news* server. Let's assume that was just a typo on your part. :)

As Jim says, there is a chance that Mediacom imposes an IP address
restriction. However, this sort of thing seems to be falling out of favor,
so I'd say the odds are in your favor. Especially if it turns out that
Mediacom does not actually host their own news servers (which is extremely
common...I was surprised to see that Cox apparently does not contract out
that feature, since many if not most ISPs do). It's much more common to not
be able to get at one's email server than to have a problem with the news
server, and even that has become less common as ISPs figure out that their
customers do in fact take their laptops with them when they travel.

If it turns out that in spite of providing a username and password you
cannot log into your news server, then it is possible your ISP can solve the
problem by either a) explicitly opening access to your hotel IP address, or
b) providing you with an alternate news server that uses a stronger
authentication method.

But, before you start worrying about all the possible ways things might go
wrong, why not try the simple test, starting out with the assumption that
everything will be fine. In the most common case, it is exactly as easy as
you say. Configure Outlook Express on your hotel computer exactly as you
would at home, and it should work.

And if it doesn't, you still have the option of going through Martin's news
server, or the other one someone else just offered up (I don't recall
offhand who that was). Neither of those should impose any sort of IP
restrictions.

Pete

[Tater]

Kingfish wrote:
> 3-4 times in the last week I've posted replies only to get the Oops!
> message and that the page is unavailable (reply got wiped out). This
> after a masterfully crafted & often witty response on my part which the
> group was denied <tongue-in-cheek mode off> Seriously, is anyone else
> seeing this? Most annoying...

DON't hit the back arrow, hit the reffresh button. tha back arrow will
kill off your witty response, while refresh will attempt to re-send the
info (and will most likeley ask you if you want to re-send the
information)

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:37:17 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>I tried to explain that to him already. He apparently just doesn't want to
>listen. There's absolutely no good reason he shouldn't be able to use the
>news server account that he *already has* with his home Mediacom account,
>even though he's connected through the Internet via his business Qwest DSL
>account.

A not insignificant number of providers filter things like POP and
NNTP servers to prevent people from using those servers from source
addresses not within their allocation.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> I didn't *say* my problem was related to Google's...just that whatever
> the problem *is* accessing Usenet in this past week or so, it isn't
> "surely 100% Google's problem" or the rest of us wouldn't be
> experiencing the same thing using other methods of accessing Usenet.

I don't see how you can avoid claiming that your problem is unrelated to
Google's, while at the same time claim that all concurrent problems related
to "accessing Usenet" must be related.

I've already explained that you, I, and every other end-user will *never*
see a general Usenet problem show up as a client-side error. A client-side
error is *always* going to be strictly between the user and their news
provider. As such, when people with different providers are having problems
at the same time, those problems are necessarily unrelated. It can be no
other way.

Your refusal to accept that it is just coincidence may make you feel better,
but it has absolutely zero basis in reality. There is no single "whatever
THE problem *is* accessing Usenet" that is affecting both you and people
going through Google.

Whatever errors Newswatcher is reporting to you, they are entirely
irrelevant to whatever errors someone using Google may have reported to
them. There is no single general problem affecting both you and Google
users.

(And frankly, I've never heard of a general "Usenet problem"...the very
design of Usenet means that problems are generally localized to individual
news providers, such as Cox or Google, and do not spread or are otherwise
shared by those providers).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>> I didn't *say* my problem was related to Google's...just that whatever
>> the problem *is* accessing Usenet in this past week or so, it isn't
>> "surely 100% Google's problem" or the rest of us wouldn't be
>> experiencing the same thing using other methods of accessing Usenet.
>
> I don't see how you can avoid claiming that your problem is unrelated to
> Google's, while at the same time claim that all concurrent problems
> related to "accessing Usenet" must be related.

"unrelated" should, of course, read "related". I don't know how that "un"
got in there. Got my negatives mixed up somehow. :(

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> I tried to explain that to him already. He apparently just doesn't want
to
> listen. There's absolutely no good reason he shouldn't be able to use the
> news server account that he *already has* with his home Mediacom account,
> even though he's connected through the Internet via his business Qwest DSL
> account.

Not necessarily... With the various ISPs that I've had over the years, I've
noticed that they seem to restrict access to their news servers to only
people who are connecting through their own network... For example, when I'm
out of town and at a hotel, I am not able to connect to RoadRunner's news
servers, I have to use Google Groups instead... Since RR does not require
you to enter a user ID and password to connect to their news servers, I
believe that they do it this way to prevent people who are not RR customers
from being able to use their system... Some of the ISPs also do the same for
the SMTP servers... Kind of an inconvenience... Enough so that I finally
decided to just use Gmail as my primary email account... If I'm away from
home, I'll either use Google Groups or one of the free news servers for
USENET access...

[Peter Duniho]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> [...] For example, when I'm
> out of town and at a hotel, I am not able to connect to RoadRunner's news
> servers, I have to use Google Groups instead... Since RR does not require
> you to enter a user ID and password to connect to their news servers, I
> believe that they do it this way to prevent people who are not RR
> customers
> from being able to use their system...

I have yet to run into such a situation in which an authenticating server
was not available as an alternative. The "no authentication" thing is as
much a convenience for the ISP (fewer things to explain to their users when
setting up) as anything else. And as I've mentioned, with the consolidation
of news services, fewer and fewer ISPs are even providing their own news
servers anyway.

Bottom line here: until Jay's tried it and failed, there's no reason to
assume he won't be able to succeed.

[Randy Aldous]

Kingfish wrote:
> 3-4 times in the last week I've posted replies only to get the Oops!
> message and that the page is unavailable (reply got wiped out). This
> after a masterfully crafted & often witty response on my part which the
> group was denied <tongue-in-cheek mode off> Seriously, is anyone else
> seeing this? Most annoying...


Yep. Just got it twice in a row. I've taken to copying my text to the
clipboard before hitting the "Post" button...
Also been happening just opening up Google Groups - to the page with
all my subscribed groups (before anyone says something about using
Google, the firewall I am behind, which I have no control over, blocks
NNTP traffic, so HTTP is it. :-) )


Randy

[Randy Aldous]

Jay -

If Qwest doesn't let you get to their news servers from outside their
network, then you could set your PC at home so you could access ir from
the hotel, thus using the same newsfeed and avoiding the problem of
having to keep two machines in sync with each other ("now, is this the
message I read at home or a new one?"

Remember, the Internet and the subset that is "Usenet" are nothing but
a bunch of computers connected to a common network.

With some exceptions, like only allowing certain IP addresses access
from/ to certain resources, which is something that the owner of the
"resource" or the ISP you are accessing the Internet from, controls
(like only giving out a room key to a paying guest - anybody can walk
down the hall or watch your lobby TV, but only those you allow, can get
into a room,) if you have access to the Internet, you can likely get
anywhere else that for which you have an address.

Randy

[Jose[_1_]]

> Yep. Just got it twice in a row. I've taken to copying my text to the
> clipboard before hitting the "Post" button...

I sometimes compose in Notepad, saving to a temp directory every now and
then, if it's a long post. Then C&P into whatever I'm posting with.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Randy Aldous]

Kingfish wrote:
> 3-4 times in the last week I've posted replies only to get the Oops!
> message and that the page is unavailable (reply got wiped out). This
> after a masterfully crafted & often witty response on my part which the
> group was denied <tongue-in-cheek mode off> Seriously, is anyone else
> seeing this? Most annoying...


Yep. Just got it twice in a row. I've taken to copying my text to the
clipboard before hitting the "Post" button...
Also been happening just opening up Google Groups - to the page with
all my subscribed groups (before anyone says something about using
Google, the firewall I am behind, which I have no control over, blocks
NNTP traffic, so HTTP is it. :-) )


Randy

[Peter Duniho]

"Randy Aldous" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jay -
>
> If Qwest doesn't let you get to their news servers from outside their
> network, then you could set your PC at home so you could access ir from
> the hotel, thus using the same newsfeed and avoiding the problem of
> having to keep two machines in sync with each other ("now, is this the
> message I read at home or a new one?"

I think "ir" should be "it"?

Randy has a good point. Using Windows Remote Desktop, you can use your home
PC as if you were sitting right at it, even while you are at your hotel.

It's a bit of a clunky solution...Remote Desktop can be run over a dial-up
connection, but even on a relatively fast connection response time can be
annoying. Your home cable modem hookup is likely limited to a 128Kbps
upload speed, so even with a high download speed on each end, that's your
bottleneck...and it's only about three times the speed of a typical dial-up
connection.

*But* doing it that way does address the same issue that using a web
interface addresses: the question of how to keep your news browsing state in
sync. As Randy says, since you're really using the same computer regardless
of location, staying in sync happens automatically.

Caveats: enabling Remote Desktop does create a potential security hole on
your home PC. Also, if you have a router or firewall or something, you'll
have to configure it to allow the inbound connection request. This isn't
all that hard, but if you've never done it before it could take a little
while before you understand what you're doing.

Pete

[Randy Aldous]

Peter Duniho wrote:
[snip]
> I think "ir" should be "it"?
Correct.

[excellent info re: Rmt Desktop snipped]

Depending on the routers (might have to reconfig a bit) at home and the
hotel, you could set up a VPN (Virtual Private Network) between the
two, and further restrict access from undesirables by allowing only
certain IPs in (that way, only the hotel and house could talk.) A lot
of routers have hardware VPN capability and you can also do it in
software, but it gets more complicated. You could sent it up so it
works both ways, you could remote into your office PC at the hotel from
home using Rmt Desktop and work from home.

One thing to note about Remote Desktop - Windows XP Home only can be a
remote not a host. It takes WinXP Pro to be the host. So if you have
Pro on both ends, you are good to go, if not, options exist.

I use Remote Desktop very reliably and with very good response from
home to work - over a 256K (both up and down) DSL line. Almost as good
as sitting at my desk. Since the cable modem bottle neck Peter
mentioned would be at the hotel end, it shouldn't affect you much
accessing the home PC from work. The remote (hotel) machine only has to
send keyboard and mouse commands; since you are actually "working" on
the host PC, unless you transfer a file from remote to host, there is
not much overhead in the remote to host direction. What will use the
most bandwidth is home PC (host) sending the screens to the remote.

There are some performance parameters in Rmt Desktop that you can set
to customize the connection, also. I would disable remote printers and
themes (backgrounds) but leave "send sounds to the remote computer"
enabled.

Randy

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> I sometimes compose in Notepad, saving to a temp directory every now and
> then, if it's a long post. Then C&P into whatever I'm posting with.

Nawh... 'vi' Rules !!!...

[Peter Duniho]

"Randy Aldous" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> [...] Since the cable modem bottle neck Peter
> mentioned would be at the hotel end, it shouldn't affect you much
> accessing the home PC from work.

Actually, unless I've recalled incorrectly, Jay has Mediacom's cable modem
at home, and Qwest DSL at the hotel. So the 128Kbps bottleneck is
significant.

Which is not to say it would prevent Remote Desktop from working. I have
use it with a dial-up connection, and while sluggish and somewhat limited in
terms of what's practical, it still works. Going through a cable modem
upload limit will be noticeable, but should not actually preclude the use of
Remote Desktop.

All that said, assuming Jay can get to his Mediacom news account from the
hotel, IMHO the best solution is to put his news data files on a USB drive
and take that back and forth. That would provide the best performance,
without any synchronization issues. The setup is non-trivial, but then so
would Remote Desktop.

As much as I dislike web interfaces to email and news, I have to admit they
have one good thing going for them: they are trivially easy to use (or at
least can and should be).

Pete

[Jose[_1_]]

> Nawh... 'vi' Rules !!!...

Over TECO?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[J. Severyn]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> Nawh... 'vi' Rules !!!...
>
> Over TECO?
>
> Jose
> --
> "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it
> keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

TECO= Type Every Character Over

Haven't used it in 20 years...

John

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> Over TECO?

What can I say? I got spoiled by UNIX... I especially liked 'vi' over 'ed',
although I still use 'sed' for certain things that are easier with it...
Emacs was nice, but 'vi' was something that you could guarantee would be on
every UNIX machine... There might be better editors for a particular flavor
of UNIX, but why should you learn 20 different editors when 'vi' was there?
I stull use 'vi' today, whether I'm on a UNIX flavor box or on a PC...

TECO is still available if you want it though... For free, no less...

http://almy.us/teco.html

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Randy Aldous" > wrote

> Yep. Just got it twice in a row. I've taken to copying my text to the
> clipboard before hitting the "Post" button...
> Also been happening just opening up Google Groups - to the page with
> all my subscribed groups (before anyone says something about using
> Google, the firewall I am behind, which I have no control over, blocks
> NNTP traffic, so HTTP is it. :-) )

I don't do anything special, until I get a failure, then I go to "sent items",
and copy the whole message. Then, I go back to the message I was replying to,
hit reply again, delete everything and replace (paste) with my copied message.

Not too hard. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 23:45:31 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Randy Aldous" > wrote
>
>> Yep. Just got it twice in a row. I've taken to copying my text to the
>> clipboard before hitting the "Post" button...
>> Also been happening just opening up Google Groups - to the page with
>> all my subscribed groups (before anyone says something about using
>> Google, the firewall I am behind, which I have no control over, blocks
>> NNTP traffic, so HTTP is it. :-) )
>
>I don't do anything special, until I get a failure, then I go to "sent items",
>and copy the whole message. Then, I go back to the message I was replying to,
>hit reply again, delete everything and replace (paste) with my copied message.
>
>Not too hard. <g>

There actually are people left who post and read news groups ON
google? It wasn't too bad before Google took over, but it sure went
down hill in a hurry afterwards.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Don Poitras]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 23:45:31 -0500, "Morgans"
> > wrote:

> >
> >"Randy Aldous" > wrote
> >
> >> Yep. Just got it twice in a row. I've taken to copying my text to the
> >> clipboard before hitting the "Post" button...
> >> Also been happening just opening up Google Groups - to the page with
> >> all my subscribed groups (before anyone says something about using
> >> Google, the firewall I am behind, which I have no control over, blocks
> >> NNTP traffic, so HTTP is it. :-) )
> >
> >I don't do anything special, until I get a failure, then I go to "sent items",
> >and copy the whole message. Then, I go back to the message I was replying to,
> >hit reply again, delete everything and replace (paste) with my copied message.
> >
> >Not too hard. <g>

> There actually are people left who post and read news groups ON
> google? It wasn't too bad before Google took over, but it sure went
> down hill in a hurry afterwards.

Took over what?

> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

--
Don Poitras

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 12:40:58 +0000 (UTC), (Don Poitras) wrote in >:

>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 23:45:31 -0500, "Morgans"
>> > wrote:

>> >"Randy Aldous" > wrote
>> >
>> >> Yep. Just got it twice in a row. I've taken to copying my text to the
>> >> clipboard before hitting the "Post" button...
>> >> Also been happening just opening up Google Groups - to the page with
>> >> all my subscribed groups (before anyone says something about using
>> >> Google, the firewall I am behind, which I have no control over, blocks
>> >> NNTP traffic, so HTTP is it. :-) )

>> >I don't do anything special, until I get a failure, then I go to "sent items",
>> >and copy the whole message. Then, I go back to the message I was replying to,
>> >hit reply again, delete everything and replace (paste) with my copied message.

>> >Not too hard. <g>

>> There actually are people left who post and read news groups ON
>> google? It wasn't too bad before Google took over, but it sure went
>> down hill in a hurry afterwards.

>Took over what?

I'm gonna speculate that he's talking about the late,
great DejaNews, whose archives were taken over by
Google in 2001.

DejaNews archived newsgroups and provided a search
engine from around 1995 to 2001.

<http://groups.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=timeline.html>

I'm personally very grateful for the services Google
provides. Usenet would be a vastly poorer place without
Google. But I understand the hankering on the part of
some to go back to the glory days before Google--or before
DejaNews--when only the best and brightest could figure out
how to find and follow newsgroups. I'm from the September
that Never Ended era myself, so I've only heard about those
halcyon days from grizzled and somewhat cranky elders.

Marty
--
The Big-8 hierarchies (comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk)
are under new management. See http://www.big-8.org for details.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 09:08:55 -0500, Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:

>I'm from the September that Never Ended era myself

that September already ended [1] :-))


#m

[1] aol cancelled there usenet service.
--
Enemy Combatant <http://itsnotallbad.com/>
... because a President says so ...

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> that September already ended [1] :-))
>
>
> #m
>
> [1] aol cancelled there usenet service.

sweet!

(btw - "their", but that's probably a typo on your part).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:00:44 -0500, Bob Noel wrote:

>> that September already ended [1] :-))
>>
>>
>> #m
>>
>> [1] aol cancelled there usenet service.
>
>sweet!

well ...

>(btw - "their", but that's probably a typo on your part).

yes. saw that.
but I use Forte Agent in free-mode so I couldn't supersede. :-(

#m
--
Enemy Combatant <http://itsnotallbad.com/>
... because a President says so ...

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 12:40:58 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Poitras) wrote:

>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 23:45:31 -0500, "Morgans"
>> > wrote:
>
>> >
>> >"Randy Aldous" > wrote
>> >
>> >> Yep. Just got it twice in a row. I've taken to copying my text to the
>> >> clipboard before hitting the "Post" button...
>> >> Also been happening just opening up Google Groups - to the page with
>> >> all my subscribed groups (before anyone says something about using
>> >> Google, the firewall I am behind, which I have no control over, blocks
>> >> NNTP traffic, so HTTP is it. :-) )
>> >
>> >I don't do anything special, until I get a failure, then I go to "sent items",
>> >and copy the whole message. Then, I go back to the message I was replying to,
>> >hit reply again, delete everything and replace (paste) with my copied message.
>> >
>> >Not too hard. <g>
>
>> There actually are people left who post and read news groups ON
>> google? It wasn't too bad before Google took over, but it sure went
>> down hill in a hurry afterwards.
>
>Took over what?

These news groups. I've forgotten the name of the group that had them
before Google, but they were in a much better format, easier to group
and read. It's been a few years back but I'm sure many on here
remember.


>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> These news groups. I've forgotten the name of the group that had them
> before Google, but they were in a much better format, easier to group
> and read. It's been a few years back but I'm sure many on here
> remember.

You're probably thinking of DejaNews, but like Google, they were just an
archive to what passes across USENET...

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 09:08:55 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 12:40:58 +0000 (UTC), (Don Poitras) wrote in >:
>
>>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 23:45:31 -0500, "Morgans"
>>> > wrote:
>
>>> >"Randy Aldous" > wrote
>>> >
>>> >> Yep. Just got it twice in a row. I've taken to copying my text to the
>>> >> clipboard before hitting the "Post" button...
>>> >> Also been happening just opening up Google Groups - to the page with
>>> >> all my subscribed groups (before anyone says something about using
>>> >> Google, the firewall I am behind, which I have no control over, blocks
>>> >> NNTP traffic, so HTTP is it. :-) )
>
>>> >I don't do anything special, until I get a failure, then I go to "sent items",
>>> >and copy the whole message. Then, I go back to the message I was replying to,
>>> >hit reply again, delete everything and replace (paste) with my copied message.
>
>>> >Not too hard. <g>
>
>>> There actually are people left who post and read news groups ON
>>> google? It wasn't too bad before Google took over, but it sure went
>>> down hill in a hurry afterwards.
>
>>Took over what?
>
>I'm gonna speculate that he's talking about the late,
>great DejaNews, whose archives were taken over by
>Google in 2001.
>
>DejaNews archived newsgroups and provided a search
>engine from around 1995 to 2001.
>
><http://groups.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=timeline.html>

Deja News was vastly superior to Google News.
>
>I'm personally very grateful for the services Google
>provides. Usenet would be a vastly poorer place without

As am I

>Google. But I understand the hankering on the part of
>some to go back to the glory days before Google--or before

Now there you made a left turn on false assumptions and that is
plural. There were no "glory days" and there is no hankering to
return.

>DejaNews--when only the best and brightest could figure out

It really wasn't that way. DejaNews was probably one of the easiest to
use, on-line news readers that has existed. Google has done a lot of
great things but they screwed up a very nice news reader.

>how to find and follow newsgroups. I'm from the September

It is true the net was not as well organized back in those days and
some things could be more difficult to find. Searches were more
difficult and there was no where near the information available.

>that Never Ended era myself, so I've only heard about those
>halcyon days from grizzled and somewhat cranky elders.

Deja News was easier to read and use than Google News Groups and it
was organized much better for the end user. It was much more like
using one of today's news readers which are very easy to use. You
certainly didn't need to be a computing guru to use it. OTOH they
didn't have much of a search engine.


>
> Marty
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 31 Oct 2006 09:21:54 -0800, "Randy Aldous" >
wrote:

>
>Kingfish wrote:
>> 3-4 times in the last week I've posted replies only to get the Oops!
>> message and that the page is unavailable (reply got wiped out). This
>> after a masterfully crafted & often witty response on my part which the
>> group was denied <tongue-in-cheek mode off> Seriously, is anyone else
>> seeing this? Most annoying...
>
>
>Yep. Just got it twice in a row. I've taken to copying my text to the
>clipboard before hitting the "Post" button...

Some default news readers such as Outlook and Outlook Express use Word
for post composition. I never used it with OE, but it was there. I
now use Agent (regular, not free). Outlook and OE are both good
readers and are safe it all the fancy stuff like HTML and running
macros is turned off.

>Also been happening just opening up Google Groups - to the page with
>all my subscribed groups (before anyone says something about using
>Google, the firewall I am behind, which I have no control over, blocks
>NNTP traffic, so HTTP is it. :-) )

The problem may not be with Google's site. The net has been rather
heavily loaded for the past few days and a tremendous upsurge in spam
the last week or two. I've found some sites I regularly use were
timing out before I could connect. Even the weather was slow to
connect and download. Some sites that *normally* load in a second or
two were loading progressively with just enough stuff showing up
they'd not time out, but would take one or two minutes to fully load.
Some never did make it completely.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:44:13 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in >:

>> ... But I understand the hankering on the part of
>>some to go back to the glory days before Google--or before

>Now there you made a left turn on false assumptions and that is
>plural. There were no "glory days" and there is no hankering to
>return.

We've got a guy in news.groups who expresses such
fond memories and vain hopes. I've promised not
to name or quote him, so he'll just have to be
my Voldemort. He'd like to roll back the clock
to when spaf was in charge.

>>that Never Ended era myself, so I've only heard about those
>>halcyon days from grizzled and somewhat cranky elders.

>Deja News was easier to read and use than Google News Groups and it
>was organized much better for the end user. It was much more like
>using one of today's news readers which are very easy to use. You
>certainly didn't need to be a computing guru to use it. OTOH they
>didn't have much of a search engine.

I used DejaNews and know I liked it a lot, but I don't
remember the interface at all. I hear a lot of complaints
about Google and share a few of them, but (on balance) I'm
delighted that they're keeping the archives open for business.

So that folks will know how much salt to use on this, I don't
earn anything at all from Google, but I volunteer time on a
committee with someone who does, so that may tend to bias
my view.

Marty
--
The Big-8 hierarchies (comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk)
are under new management. See http://www.big-8.org for details.

[Jim Logajan]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote:
>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>> There were no "glory days" and there is no hankering to return.
>
> We've got a guy in news.groups who expresses such
> fond memories and vain hopes. I've promised not
> to name or quote him,

You mean Wayne Brown?