Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > news.groups.proposals > #4002 > unrolled thread

RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc

Back to article view | Back to news.groups.proposals

Contents

  RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> - 2025-10-10 10:22 -0400
    Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-10-10 19:22 -0400
      Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-10-11 14:40 -0400
        Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-10-12 11:30 -0400
      Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2025-10-12 11:29 -0400
        Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-10-12 11:37 -0400
          Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2025-10-13 15:59 -0400
            Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-10-14 01:31 -0400
            Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> - 2025-10-14 16:59 -0400
              Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-10-15 08:51 -0400
                Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-10-16 09:38 -0400
                Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-10-16 09:38 -0400
                  Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Tristan Miller <tmiller@big-8.org> - 2025-10-16 12:43 -0400
                Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2025-10-20 13:23 -0400
                  Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-10-20 15:17 -0400
                    Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> - 2025-10-21 10:04 -0400
                    Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2025-10-22 05:57 -0400
                      Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Jesse Rehmer <jesse.rehmer@blueworldhosting.com> - 2025-10-22 09:19 -0400
                        Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-10-22 11:46 -0400
                          Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-10-23 11:07 -0400
                            Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2025-10-24 04:20 -0400
                              Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-10-24 04:26 -0400
                                Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2025-10-25 11:36 -0400
                                  Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-10-25 14:23 -0400
                              Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc groenveld@acm.org (John D Groenveld) - 2025-10-24 10:51 -0400
                                Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2025-10-25 11:37 -0400
                            Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-10-25 14:12 -0400
                              Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-10-26 05:05 -0400
                        Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2025-10-22 17:01 -0400
                          Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Jesse Rehmer <jesse.rehmer@blueworldhosting.com> - 2025-10-23 11:07 -0400
                        Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> - 2025-10-25 11:37 -0400
                        Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> - 2025-10-26 21:03 -0400
              Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2025-10-15 09:07 -0400
            Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Tristan Miller <tmiller@big-8.org> - 2025-10-16 12:14 -0400
              Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-10-16 14:07 -0400
              Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2025-10-20 13:22 -0400
                Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-10-20 15:23 -0400
                  Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2025-10-22 05:57 -0400
                Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Tristan Miller <tmiller@big-8.org> - 2025-10-21 12:08 -0400
        Re: Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc ReK2 Hispagatos <rek2@usenet_reborn.tui> - 2025-10-15 14:26 -0400
          Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc groenveld@acm.org (John D Groenveld) - 2025-10-16 09:38 -0400
            Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-10-16 14:12 -0400
              Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc groenveld@acm.org (John D Groenveld) - 2025-10-16 23:43 -0400
          Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-10-16 14:11 -0400
      Re: RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Tristan Miller <tmiller@big-8.org> - 2025-10-16 12:35 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#4002 — RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
unmoderated newsgroups.

comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc
comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc


DISTRIBUTION:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
comp.unix.misc
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc
comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc


PROPONENT: Marco Moock <mmoock@big-8.org>


RATIONALE:

There are various groups in comp.unix.* that are not used regularly.

I propose to delete groups that are not used well and to direct the
people to more general groups like comp.unix.misc in case they want to
discuss the topics they special groups covered.
If people declare interest in using them, I suggest to not delete them.


GROUPS:

comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc
386BSD operating system.

History:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc is a unmoderated newsgroup which passed its
vote for creation by 285:87 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on
22 Feb 1995.  This groups supersedes the unmoderated groups in the
comp.os.386bsd hierarchy, which will all be removed on 26 May 1995.

Charter:
Discussion about 386bsd which does not fall into the area
of coverage of any of the other 386bsd groups.  Things
posted here should not be crossposted to the other 386bsd
groups.

Rationale:
Last on-topic message from 2010.
This operating system isn't developed anymore.
If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used.


comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc
BSD/OS operating system.

History:
comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc is a unmoderated newsgroup which passed its
vote for creation by 305:69 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on
22 Feb 1995.

Charter:
Discussion about BSD/OS which does not fall into the area
of coverage of any of the other bsdi groups.  Things posted
here should not be crossposted to the other bsdi groups.

Rationale:
Last on-topic discussion in 2015
This operating system isn't developed anymore.
If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used.


PROCEDURE:

Those who wish to comment on this request to remove this newsgroup
should subscribe to news:news.groups.proposals and participate in the
relevant threads in that newsgroup.

To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.proposals.

All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
news.groups.proposals.

If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the
discussion may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken
to ensure that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as
well.

For more information on the newsgroup removal process, please see
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Removing_newsgroups


HISTORY OF THIS RFD:

2025-10-10: 1st RFD (remove)


-- 
Usenet Big-8 Management Board
https://www.big-8.org/
board@big-8.org

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4004

In news.groups.proposals Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:
> Rationale:
> Last on-topic message from 2010.
> This operating system isn't developed anymore.
> If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used.

Can they though? If someone takes an interest in running these OSs
and picks a group focused on current BSD to discuss them in, aren't
they likely to effectively be told exactly that: "The operating
system isn't developed anymore, go away"? The most active computer
groups tend to be frequented by people who are hostile to users of
unmaintained software (I think Marco Mook has fit this description
himself in the past). Having these separate places to discuss old
platforms is an asset of Usenet to allow it to cater for people
with different interests without unnecessary conflict.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4005

On 10.10.2025 19:22 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> In news.groups.proposals Usenet Big-8 Management Board
> <board@big-8.org> wrote:
> > Rationale:
> > Last on-topic message from 2010.
> > This operating system isn't developed anymore.
> > If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used.  
> 
> Can they though? If someone takes an interest in running these OSs
> and picks a group focused on current BSD to discuss them in, aren't
> they likely to effectively be told exactly that: "The operating
> system isn't developed anymore, go away"?

I do tell people if there OS is not supported anymore and suggest them
to install a current one due to various reasons. Although, I do not
tell them to go away. There are various folklore groups that have
discussions about ancient operating systems.

> The most active computer groups tend to be frequented by people who
> are hostile to users of unmaintained software (I think Marco Mook has
> fit this description himself in the past). Having these separate
> places to discuss old platforms is an asset of Usenet to allow it to
> cater for people with different interests without unnecessary
> conflict.

I would agree with that if there were people who want to do that - but
the groups listed were inactive for a very long time.

-- 
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1760116949muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4007

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> On 10.10.2025 19:22 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Having these separate places to discuss old platforms is an
>> asset of Usenet to allow it to cater for people with different
>> interests without unnecessary conflict.
> 
> I would agree with that if there were people who want to do that - but
> the groups listed were inactive for a very long time.

I subscribe to groups in comp.* and elsewhere that have similar or
even less recent discussion. Lately I've also been subscribing to
dead groups on topics I'm less experienced in just to work back
through the archive of old posts on the news server I use.

Sometimes I post or cross-post to such groups. Sometimes I prefer
that to posting in a more active group covering a broader topic
where the regulars are very unlikely to be interested in my
sub-topic, or not even agree with me that it is remotely on-topic.
It works for me and I think it's harmless to keep these groups.

Indeed I think trying to hurd people towards the remaining active
groups will only increase the already troublesome amount of OT
discussion in many of those active groups, which can drive regulars
away from those groups too.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4006

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 19:22:29 -0400, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> In news.groups.proposals Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org>
> wrote:
>> Rationale:
>> Last on-topic message from 2010.
>> This operating system isn't developed anymore.
>> If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used.
> 
> Can they though? If someone takes an interest in running these OSs and
> picks a group focused on current BSD to discuss them in, aren't they
> likely to effectively be told exactly that: "The operating system isn't
> developed anymore, go away"? The most active computer groups tend to be
> frequented by people who are hostile to users of unmaintained software
> (I think Marco Mook has fit this description himself in the past).
> Having these separate places to discuss old platforms is an asset of
> Usenet to allow it to cater for people with different interests without
> unnecessary conflict.


I don't understand why this at all for UNmoderated groups now, did marco 
run out of moderated groups to pick on, he's clearly more at home on 
mailing lists than usenet, its not all just about currency, its about 
history as well, but many have pointed this out and were ignored, becasue 
what marco wants marco thinks he can get, total destruction of usenet, 
bad enough he went on his little rampage with unmod'd groups but now 
this... just further justification for changing all rmgroup message 
entries in control to discard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4008

On 12.10.2025 11:29 Uhr noel wrote:

> I don't understand why this at all for UNmoderated groups now, did
> marco run out of moderated groups to pick on, he's clearly more at
> home on mailing lists than usenet, its not all just about currency,
> its about history as well, but many have pointed this out and were
> ignored, becasue what marco wants marco thinks he can get, total
> destruction of usenet, bad enough he went on his little rampage with
> unmod'd groups but now this... just further justification for
> changing all rmgroup message entries in control to discard.

Please have a look at
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Nan:2011-04-24-result-great-downsizing

The process of removing unused groups is rather old.

PS: From the replies we got so for no one showed interesting in posting
to the groups that are proposed to delete.

-- 
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1760261386muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4009

On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:37:19 -0400, Marco Moock wrote:

> On 12.10.2025 11:29 Uhr noel wrote:
> 
>> I don't understand why this at all for UNmoderated groups now, did
>> marco run out of moderated groups to pick on, he's clearly more at home
>> on mailing lists than usenet, its not all just about currency, its
>> about history as well, but many have pointed this out and were ignored,
>> becasue what marco wants marco thinks he can get, total destruction of
>> usenet, bad enough he went on his little rampage with unmod'd groups
>> but now this... just further justification for changing all rmgroup
>> message entries in control to discard.
> 
> Please have a look at
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Nan:2011-04-24-result-great-downsizing
> 
> The process of removing unused groups is rather old.

and a lot of these things were ative back then, this group has on-topic 
post from 2015 here, and who are you to decide whats on topic or not.
usenet is dying, and your expiditing its entry to the grave, you dont see 
list admins or forum operators  culling off threads because heaven forbid 
no one wants to contribute to a 2015 or 2010 thread since the answer to 
their question or curiosity is already answered.

> 
> PS: From the replies we got so for no one showed interesting in posting
> to the groups that are proposed to delete.

of course not, that does not excuse your desire to remove history, and 
usenet itself, but we all know you have made this decision, and no 
proposal notices anywhere will change your mind.

It is extremely dangerous to have 8 hierachies fate decided by 3 or 4 
people, and lets face it most others on this board that keeps voting 
itself back in, see something that needs a voting on and will just hit  
yeah anyway without actually giving a damn... been there, done that. So 
this entire conversation is pointless, its also why I and from my 
testing, serveral other free access text groups wont honour rmgroups.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4010

noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:

> (((...))), its also why I and from my testing, serveral other free
> access text groups wont honour rmgroups.

\o/  Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4011

Hi Noel,

>>> marco thinks he can get total destruction of usenet

I don't believe at all that's his goal.  A bit of cleaning in the very 
long list of newsgroups is helpful to better see still active and 
relevant newsgroups nowadays.


> your desire to remove history
[...]
> several other free access text groups wont honour rmgroups

Sending rmgroup articles is not a synonym of removing history.
It is normal and expected that news servers whose aim is to archive 
articles and therefore keep history, do not honour rmgroup requests.
Not all news servers retain articles for a life time.  If a server keeps 
articles during let's say 1 year, it is not intended to be used for 
historical purpose and it can have a cleaner list of still active 
newsgroups for its readers.

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Farpaitement ! » (Obélix)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4012

On 14.10.2025 16:59 Uhr Julien �LIE wrote:

> >>> marco thinks he can get total destruction of usenet
>
> I don't believe at all that's his goal. A bit of cleaning in the very
> long list of newsgroups is helpful to better see still active and
> relevant newsgroups nowadays.

Exactly that is the case. Occasionally some new users join and to make
them subscribe to a group, there need to be at least some articles per
year in a group. Otherwise the most likely don't subscribe to that.

Long-time readers may also unsubscribe because of no traffic for years.

> > your desire to remove history
> [...]
> > several other free access text groups wont honour rmgroups
>
> Sending rmgroup articles is not a synonym of removing history.

History of groups is available at isc and the board of various
hierarchies also provide it.

Old articles are being archived. Not every NNTP server is an archive and
most NNTP servers don't have retention longer than some years, so the
groups proposed for deletion do not contain one article.

--
kind regards Marco

Send spam to 1760453945muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4016

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> On 14.10.2025 16:59 Uhr Julien ?LIE wrote:
>> >>> marco thinks he can get total destruction of usenet
>>
>> I don't believe at all that's his goal. A bit of cleaning in the very
>> long list of newsgroups is helpful to better see still active and
>> relevant newsgroups nowadays.
> 
> Exactly that is the case. Occasionally some new users join and to make
> them subscribe to a group, there need to be at least some articles per
> year in a group. Otherwise the most likely don't subscribe to that.

Occasionally new users also try and advocate for creating new groups on
specific sub-topics because they're not comfortable posting about those
topics in the more general groups that already exist, so that argument
for a longer/shorter group list sways both ways. Appeal to some new
users and you'll disappoint others - it's just rearranging deck
chairs on the Titanic.

Also it's almost certain that those new users who do complain about
too many, rather than not enough, groups are really talking about all
the alt.* (etc.) groups carried by the server they're using. Trimming
out groups from comp.* is never going to make a meaningful change
compared to all those, so you might as well retain them and not have
some new user asking for an "alt.386bsd" just because they can't see
for themselves that nobody would talk to them there anyway.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4018

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> writes:
[...]
> History of groups is available at isc and the board of various
> hierarchies also provide it.
[...]

What is isc?  What is "the board of various hierarchies"?  How are
they accessible?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4021

Greetings.

On 2025-10-16 08:38, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> writes:
> [...]
>> History of groups is available at isc and the board of various
>> hierarchies also provide it.
> [...]
> 
> What is isc?  What is "the board of various hierarchies"?  How are
> they accessible?


ISC is the Internet Systems Consortium.  They maintain an archive of 
control messages, RFDs, and similar administrative documents for the Big 
8 hierarchy at <https://ftp.isc.org/usenet/>.

Most other newsgroup hierarchies on Usenet are managed by other entities 
(i.e., not the Big-8 Management Board).  Julien Élie has a list of 
managed hierarchies, and the corresponding managing organizations, at 
<http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/>.

Regards,
Tristan

-- 
Usenet Big-8 Management Board
https://www.big-8.org/
board@big-8.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4027

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:51:31 -0400, Marco Moock wrote:

> there need to be at least some articles per
> year in a group. Otherwise the most likely don't subscribe to that.


Where is your evidence, links to multiple repuatable sources please, 
since you made that statement, you surely must have them.


> Long-time readers may also unsubscribe because of no traffic for years.
> 

Again, please supply evidence.


>> > your desire to remove history
>> [...]
>> > several other free access text groups wont honour rmgroups
>>
>> Sending rmgroup articles is not a synonym of removing history.
> 
> History of groups is available at isc and the board of various
> hierarchies also provide it.
> 

We are talking history as in history not just of groups names but their 
articles, usenet in its entirety is an "archive" it just depends on how 
long $server_admin wants to allow it, usually this is a disk space 
decision, not because nobody posts to it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4028

On 20.10.2025 13:23 Uhr noel wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:51:31 -0400, Marco Moock wrote:
> 
> > there need to be at least some articles per
> > year in a group. Otherwise the most likely don't subscribe to that.
> >  
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence, links to multiple repuatable sources please, 
> since you made that statement, you surely must have them.

It is common sense. If a place is empty and stays empty for a while,
people usually unsubscribe.

I haven't got back one reply from someone who was lurking there and
wants to keep the group. Not a single one.

Although, sometimes new people arrive (have a look at
eternal-september.newusers) and ask for groups where real discussion
happens - because the group list is full of empty groups, that are
useless for people who are interested in current discussions.

> > Long-time readers may also unsubscribe because of no traffic for
> > years. 
> 
> Again, please supply evidence.

I assume various people subscribed to those groups in the past to read
and post there. I haven't seen a reply from one of those, so the
interest in those groups for current discussion is actually zero.

> >> > your desire to remove history  
> >> [...]  
> >> > several other free access text groups wont honour rmgroups  
> >>
> >> Sending rmgroup articles is not a synonym of removing history.  
> > 
> > History of groups is available at isc and the board of various
> > hierarchies also provide it.
> >   
> 
> We are talking history as in history not just of groups names but
> their articles, usenet in its entirety is an "archive" it just
> depends on how long $server_admin wants to allow it, usually this is
> a disk space decision, not because nobody posts to it.

And here we are again: Archiving servers shouldn't process rmgroup at
all.
In that case, why should admins of those servers care?

-- 
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1760959383muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4030

As part of this thread, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> replied:
> If a place is empty and stays empty for a while,
> people usually unsubscribe.

I'm just the opposite.  Remaining subscribed to a group with no traffic,
especially one where I mostly read and rarely post, costs nothing.  The
main time I've unsubscribed was when a group had lots of traffic and I
decided I no longer cared enough about it to spend the time it takes to
engage with it.

The other reason for not unsubscribing is that not all USENET servers
carry all groups.  If I use a provider that doesn't carry some group,
I'll keep the subscription because some day I might add a provider that
does carry it.

As an example of not unsubscribing, I've remained subscribed to
aioe.news.helpdesk even though AIOE has been dead for a long time.
(Yes, that's not a Big-8 newsgroup, but using it as an example has some
humor value.)

Just my two cents,
 -WBE

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4032

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 15:17:43 -0400, Marco Moock wrote:

> On 20.10.2025 13:23 Uhr noel wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:51:31 -0400, Marco Moock wrote:
>> 
>> > there need to be at least some articles per year in a group.
>> > Otherwise the most likely don't subscribe to that.
>> >  
>> >  
>> 
>> Where is your evidence, links to multiple repuatable sources please,
>> since you made that statement, you surely must have them.
> 
> It is common sense. If a place is empty and stays empty for a while,
> people usually unsubscribe.
> 

Common sense? So as I suspected you have NO evidence.

BTW there is no such thing as common sense, define it, go on, because 
what is to one may not be to another.


> I haven't got back one reply from someone who was lurking there and
> wants to keep the group. Not a single one.

over what period of time, 28 days or longer, and why would they respond 
tpo someone who posts these things,

> 
> Although, sometimes new people arrive (have a look at
> eternal-september.newusers) 

I do not use ES, nor do we peer with them. I know the support group is 
propogated out and only group I've got in my subs, no Idea why in the 
first place either.


>  because the group list is full of empty groups, that are
> useless for people who are interested in current discussions.

again, so what? you are intent on killing all usenet discussions unless 
they happened wiuth in past 3 hours or something, hell marco, you do not 
even run a usenet server yet you want to make decisions for us, and we've 
shown you in the past to, because ES has no articles in X period of time, 
consider the groups dead, Kev I think did so as well, we've shown our 
server, and by extension probably Jesse, Alex, Paul, Steve, Giga and 
others have posts in it years later than you see, and IIRC by your own 
admission on at least one of them, they were active, and not spam.

> 
>> > Long-time readers may also unsubscribe because of no traffic for
>> > years.
>> 
>> Again, please supply evidence.
> 
> I assume various people subscribed to those groups in the past to read
> and post there. I haven't seen a reply from one of those, so the
> interest in those groups for current discussion is actually zero.
> 

assumptions are the mother of all fuckups


>> >> > your desire to remove history
>> >> [...]
>> >> > several other free access text groups wont honour rmgroups
>> >>
>> >> Sending rmgroup articles is not a synonym of removing history.
>> > 
>> > History of groups is available at isc and the board of various
>> > hierarchies also provide it.
>> >   
>> >   
>> We are talking history as in history not just of groups names but their
>> articles, usenet in its entirety is an "archive" it just depends on how
>> long $server_admin wants to allow it, usually this is a disk space
>> decision, not because nobody posts to it.
> 
> And here we are again: Archiving servers shouldn't process rmgroup at
> all.
> In that case, why should admins of those servers care?

I dont call myself an archive server, I call it a usenet news server, 
like pretty much all other operators do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4034

On Oct 22, 2025 at 4:57:24 AM CDT, "noel" <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:

> again, so what? you are intent on killing all usenet discussions unless
> they happened wiuth in past 3 hours or something, hell marco, you do not
> even run a usenet server yet you want to make decisions for us, and we've
> shown you in the past to, because ES has no articles in X period of time,
> consider the groups dead, Kev I think did so as well, we've shown our
> server, and by extension probably Jesse, Alex, Paul, Steve, Giga and
> others have posts in it years later than you see, and IIRC by your own
> admission on at least one of them, they were active, and not spam.

Neither of the groups being discussed have relevant articles in the last 10+
years on my server.

I do not see benefit keeping unused groups. Usenet was not intended to be an
archive of articles that lasts forever. Archiving Usenet is a decision, and if
you're looking for archives, there are plenty these days.

For the health and relevancy of Usenet, I support removing unused groups. I've
been around long enough and still don't always know where to post about a
topic I haven't discussed on Usenet before. If one looks for "unix" against my
active file there are 269 groups, "linux" has 455. How does a new/naive Usenet
user determine the most appropriate group(s)?

Judging by article count can be deceiving if the server archives. There may be
over 1,000,000 articles making the group appear active at first glance, but
upon inspection there hasn't been discussion about that topic for over 10
years. That's discouraging to a new user and could lead to them giving up
Usenet quickly.

Archives have benefits but that doesn't mean that all of Usenet should be an
archive. If topics are no longer being discussed on Usenet, why keep the
groups around? Looking back through Usenet history, there certainly wasn't an
issue getting groups created when enough users were interested in a topic.
Should Usenet see a revival and the needs of the network change I believe
we'll be able to react appropriately.

Usenet has shrank dramatically, whether we like it or not. In September 2025,
there were 780 total hosts reported by 73 participating servers in the top1000
stats. If you take out duplicate hosts per site and FIDO nodes it's closer to
200 sites. In 2005 the top1000 routinely reported over 6,500 hosts seen by 356
participating servers.

In Usenet's current state, in my opinion, it is appropriate to remove unused
groups.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4035

On 22.10.2025 09:19 Uhr Jesse Rehmer wrote:

> For the health and relevancy of Usenet, I support removing unused
> groups. I've been around long enough and still don't always know
> where to post about a topic I haven't discussed on Usenet before. If
> one looks for "unix" against my active file there are 269 groups,
> "linux" has 455. How does a new/naive Usenet user determine the most
> appropriate group(s)?

Thanks for pointing that out.
If I want to discuss a topic, I choose a place where actual people read
and post.

According to the replies we got so far, no one cared about those groups
I proposed to remove.

-- 
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1761117586muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4038

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> On 22.10.2025 09:19 Uhr Jesse Rehmer wrote:
> 
>> For the health and relevancy of Usenet, I support removing unused
>> groups. I've been around long enough and still don't always know
>> where to post about a topic I haven't discussed on Usenet before. If
>> one looks for "unix" against my active file there are 269 groups,
>> "linux" has 455. How does a new/naive Usenet user determine the most
>> appropriate group(s)?
> 
> Thanks for pointing that out.
> If I want to discuss a topic, I choose a place where actual people read
> and post.

So you end up with behaviour like in comp.os.linux.misc at the
moment where people just talk about anything vaguely technology
related (or now not even that) because people will repond there.
But people like me start killfiling and marking all posts as read
so much it becomes hard to follow what little on-topic discussion
still takes place. There's the same trouble at
sci.electronics.design where I saw at least one post from another
reader who said they'd given up following the group regularly due
to the similar problem there.

On the other hand I'm happy to post to quiet groups, and at least
my post is not lost in the noise from people who don't even really
know anything about my topic (or don't want it discussed in their
presence). Sometimes (albeit not often) after a week/month/year
someone does actually come out of the woodwork and post an informed
reply that I mightn't have followed a noisy group long enough to
even see.

> According to the replies we got so far, no one cared about those groups
> I proposed to remove.

The first reply was from me and I ended with this statement which
covered these groups:

  Having these separate places to discuss old platforms is an asset
  of Usenet to allow it to cater for people with different
  interests without unnecessary conflict.

But apparantly that doesn't count as caring to you. I'm not going
to flail around further rewording an opinion you refuse to
acknowledge. You understand someone generally in favour of deleting
"unused" groups, but ignore someone who'se generally against it. I
guess this wasn't really a Request for Discussion but a Request for
One-Sided Discussion.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | news.groups.proposals

csiph-web