I just noticed that all my articles are coming out with

  X-No-Archive: Yes 
  X-Copyright: This copyrighted article comes from a private news
  server and may NOT be distributed on USENET or other news servers.

So apparently povray wishes not to mingle with the USENET. Why not?
The copyrighted-by-server statement looks interesting.

Post a reply to this message

Daniel Bastos wrote:
> I just noticed that all my articles are coming out with
> 
>   X-No-Archive: Yes 
>   X-Copyright: This copyrighted article comes from a private news
>   server and may NOT be distributed on USENET or other news servers.
> 
> So apparently povray wishes not to mingle with the USENET. Why not?
> The copyrighted-by-server statement looks interesting. 

It has been and always will be a private server, not part of the usenet 
at large.

Think of it as more or less being forums for POVRay users.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a817414$1@news.povray.org>,
Mike Raiford wrote:

> Daniel Bastos wrote:
>> I just noticed that all my articles are coming out with
>> 
>>   X-No-Archive: Yes 
>>   X-Copyright: This copyrighted article comes from a private news
>>   server and may NOT be distributed on USENET or other news servers.
>> 
>> So apparently povray wishes not to mingle with the USENET. Why not?
>> The copyrighted-by-server statement looks interesting. 

[...]

> Think of it as more or less being forums for POVRay users.

Does the USENET destroy that with increasing spam rate and high
frequency assholesness? :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:13:08 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

> Does the USENET destroy that with increasing spam rate and high
> frequency assholesness? :-)

That's probably a major component of it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11-8-2009 17:13, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> In article <4a817414$1@news.povray.org>,
> Mike Raiford wrote:
> 
>> Daniel Bastos wrote:
>>> I just noticed that all my articles are coming out with
>>>
>>>   X-No-Archive: Yes 
>>>   X-Copyright: This copyrighted article comes from a private news
>>>   server and may NOT be distributed on USENET or other news servers.
>>>
>>> So apparently povray wishes not to mingle with the USENET. Why not?
>>> The copyrighted-by-server statement looks interesting. 
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Think of it as more or less being forums for POVRay users.
> 
> Does the USENET destroy that with increasing spam rate and high
> frequency assholesness? :-)

You should ask Chris, but I seem to remember that there was a rule that 
might have forced Chris to also carry all or most of the other USENET 
groups if POV had been part of it.
There is also the IP problem. We create IP, putting it on a private 
server gives that server the right to use that image or animation. 
Putting it on USENET would effectively remove all control over our work.
There may have been other reasons as well.

One of the problems of that USENET SPAM is that many newsgroups have 
died as a result, so it increases the likelyhood that at some point in 
time newsgroup support drops out of thunderbird or then state of the art 
e-mail browsers, at which point our POV news server could die as well.

Post a reply to this message

In article <4A8### [at] hotmailcom>,
andrel wrote:

> On 11-8-2009 17:13, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>> In article <4a817414$1@news.povray.org>,
>> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> 
>>> Daniel Bastos wrote:
>>>> I just noticed that all my articles are coming out with
>>>>
>>>>   X-No-Archive: Yes 
>>>>   X-Copyright: This copyrighted article comes from a private news
>>>>   server and may NOT be distributed on USENET or other news servers.
>>>>
>>>> So apparently povray wishes not to mingle with the USENET. Why not?
>>>> The copyrighted-by-server statement looks interesting. 
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> Think of it as more or less being forums for POVRay users.
>> 
>> Does the USENET destroy that with increasing spam rate and high
>> frequency assholesness? :-)
>
> You should ask Chris, but I seem to remember that there was a rule that 
> might have forced Chris to also carry all or most of the other USENET 
> groups if POV had been part of it.

Chris? Are you out there?

So is this how the USENET works? Must you carry an entire hierarchy or
something? A peer cannot nitpick what the peer needs? 

> There is also the IP problem. We create IP, putting it on a private 
> server gives that server the right to use that image or animation. 
> Putting it on USENET would effectively remove all control over our work.
> There may have been other reasons as well.

What's IP? I'm lost here.

> One of the problems of that USENET SPAM is that many newsgroups have 
> died as a result, so it increases the likelyhood that at some point in 
> time newsgroup support drops out of thunderbird or then state of the art 
> e-mail browsers, at which point our POV news server could die as well.

This makes some sense. If you also enlarge a community too much, it
becomes a large one, which is different from many people's `community'
definition. 

But I think large communities should exist. Perhaps for publication. A
place where people even talk about what went one in a smaller
community or something. You know? 

Suppose a community comes up with a great idea. That could be reported
in the global community as a way to alert all small communities of
that idea. 

There could be a group on povray in a wild large USENET for more
serious discussions. You can still post whatever you want there, but
you wouldn't because it's better to talk here because it's friendlier.
(I'm making the USENET into a global journal on the topic.)

(*) Changing subject

But would povray.org accept linking themselves with another small
community, of perhaps totally unrelated intellectual interests?
Because the beauty of newsgroups is that if they're `near' one
another, you could meet people and see what they're doing, which is
very commune.

Post a reply to this message

On 12-8-2009 0:31, Daniel Bastos wrote:

>> There is also the IP problem. We create IP, putting it on a private 
>> server gives that server the right to use that image or animation. 
>> Putting it on USENET would effectively remove all control over our work.
>> There may have been other reasons as well.
> 
> What's IP? I'm lost here.

sorry, Intellectual Property

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:31:32 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

> So is this how the USENET works? Must you carry an entire hierarchy or
> something? A peer cannot nitpick what the peer needs?

Not that I've ever seen, but it might depend on the provider.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:31:32 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>
> > So is this how the USENET works? Must you carry an entire hierarchy or
> > something? A peer cannot nitpick what the peer needs?
>
> Not that I've ever seen, but it might depend on the provider.
>
> Jim

I thought the official reason was more like the outside re-postings were
manually and incompletely done.  Some user got upset at the lack of response to
a question posted "outside", the lack being due to the flaky and one-way
carry-over.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:03:11 -0400, gregjohn wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:31:32 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>>
>> > So is this how the USENET works? Must you carry an entire hierarchy
>> > or something? A peer cannot nitpick what the peer needs?
>>
>> Not that I've ever seen, but it might depend on the provider.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> I thought the official reason was more like the outside re-postings were
> manually and incompletely done.  Some user got upset at the lack of
> response to a question posted "outside", the lack being due to the flaky
> and one-way carry-over.

That could be, and is definitely something that can happen....

Jim

Post a reply to this message