microsoft.* hierarchy

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi all,

As we speak of historic hierarchies (net.*), the microsoft.* one has
also been stalled since 2009 when the msnews.microsoft.com server was
shut down.
Nonetheless, the newsgroups are still in the wide, and some of them are
active.
So maybe microsoft.* should remain in control.ctl but the comment adapted?


# Control articles for that hierarchy are not issued by Microsoft itself
# but by a Usenet active participant in order to improve the quality of
# the propagation of Microsoft newsgroups. Their official URL is:
# http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx

=> I suggest to make it unmanaged and remove PGP key & administrative
stuff. Unless someone has a better advice about that?

Web forums (https://answers.microsoft.com/) are now used by Microsoft.

I doubt the PGP key will ever serve again. Its purpose was to propagate
changes made to the official newsgroups from msnews.microsoft.com.

I still have the private key, though, and will consider deleting it.

[Russ Allbery]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
As we speak of historic hierarchies (net.*), the microsoft.* one has
also been stalled since 2009 when the msnews.microsoft.com server was
shut down. Nonetheless, the newsgroups are still in the wide, and some
of them are active. So maybe microsoft.* should remain in control.ctl
but the comment adapted?
# Control articles for that hierarchy are not issued by Microsoft itself
# but by a Usenet active participant in order to improve the quality of
# http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx
=> I suggest to make it unmanaged and remove PGP key & administrative
stuff. Unless someone has a better advice about that?

Well, I think it's partly up to you whether you want to continue to
maintain the hierarchy. If you don't, then making it unmanaged makes
sense, and I can understand why you may not want to take on management of
the hierarchy rather than just relaying Microsoft's group list.

That said, it's still in active use, so having a source of a canonical
group list is useful. So would pruning out the groups that no one is
using if anyone felt like doing that. Obviously, you don't have to take
that on and anyone who does that doesn't even need to use the same private
key (we can always update configurations later), but it might be an easier
transition to keep using the same one.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Russ,

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Julien ÉLIE
As we speak of historic hierarchies (net.*), the microsoft.* one has
also been stalled since 2009 when the msnews.microsoft.com server was
shut down. Nonetheless, the newsgroups are still in the wide, and some
of them are active. So maybe microsoft.* should remain in control.ctl
but the comment adapted?
# Control articles for that hierarchy are not issued by Microsoft itself
# but by a Usenet active participant in order to improve the quality of
# http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx
=> I suggest to make it unmanaged and remove PGP key & administrative
stuff. Unless someone has a better advice about that?

Well, I think it's partly up to you whether you want to continue to
maintain the hierarchy. If you don't, then making it unmanaged makes
sense, and I can understand why you may not want to take on management of
the hierarchy rather than just relaying Microsoft's group list.

I have not sent any control message since 2009 for the microsoft.*
hierarchy. Major products like latest Windows 10, upcoming Windows 11,
Office 365, Teams, Edge, etc. do not have their dedicated newsgroup.

Well, there are (at least) two choices:
- making the hierarchy unmanaged, without syncable server and PGP stuff,
but of course still listing it in control.ctl and ftp.isc.org newsgroups
file;
- trying to give it a new impulse and sending control messages to create
newsgroups from the products seen in the new Microsoft Community web
forums <https://answers.microsoft.com/>

For the second choice, it would need a bit of initial work to elaborate
the list of such groups, and decide the languages for which to create
them besides English.
And of course a bit of analysis too of the current newsgroups (which one
are still active, in which language). Some of them are no longer
relevant and can be removed.

Maybe I could send a message in a few active newsgroups to probe what
still existing users want. The may already have an idea of useful
newsgroups to create.

Surely a better strategy than giving up :-)
At least not before having tried something.

Post by Russ Allbery
That said, it's still in active use, so having a source of a canonical
group list is useful. So would pruning out the groups that no one is
using if anyone felt like doing that. Obviously, you don't have to take
that on and anyone who does that doesn't even need to use the same private
key (we can always update configurations later), but it might be an easier
transition to keep using the same one.

Sounds good. Using the same key seems better, though its initial goal
changes from just syncing the Microsoft news server list.


P.-S.: I wonder whether gnu.* couldn't similarly be checked and
updated. As well as perl.* or linux.* list of mailing-list gateways.

[Russ Allbery]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
P.-S.: I wonder whether gnu.* couldn't similarly be checked and
updated. As well as perl.* or linux.* list of mailing-list gateways.

I think Marco still actively maintains linux.*, although I may be wrong.

perl.* and gnu.* used to be mailing list gateways (the latter used
Mailman), but I'm not sure if anyone kept that running. gnu.* used to use
my news server but stopped a long time ago. IIRC, mailing list senders
were complaining about getting spam and thought it was due to Usenet.

I created a key for gnu.* eons ago and was going to help maintain it, but
then never finished the project and it's long-since defunct.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Russ,

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Julien ÉLIE
P.-S.: I wonder whether gnu.* couldn't similarly be checked and
updated. As well as perl.* or linux.* list of mailing-list gateways.

I think Marco still actively maintains linux.*, although I may be wrong.

Checkgroups for linux.* are sent from time to time. Last one a few
months ago, in January 2021.
However, no changes since 2004; that's why I wonder whether the list was
up-to-date (no new mailing-list to gateway, or new groups or defunct
ones to remove?)

Post by Russ Allbery
I created a key for gnu.* eons ago and was going to help maintain it, but
then never finished the project and it's long-since defunct.

Then shouldn't gnu.* marked as unmanaged or defunct?

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi all,

Post by Julien ÉLIE
- trying to give it a new impulse and sending control messages to create
newsgroups from the products seen in the new Microsoft Community web
forums <https://answers.microsoft.com/>

I'm wondering whether there couldn't be legal issues with that
(maintaining a list of microsoft.public.* newsgroup names matching
Microsoft products, now that the officiel msnews.microsoft.com server is
no longer here).

Likewise, if someone pops up and maintain an apple.* hierarchy with
Apple product names, I am unsure it will receive a great welcome when
they hear of it. Though I may be wrong about that.

[b***@ripco.com]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
I'm wondering whether there couldn't be legal issues with that
(maintaining a list of microsoft.public.* newsgroup names matching
Microsoft products, now that the officiel msnews.microsoft.com server is
no longer here).

For what it's worth, not exactly the same thing but close, years ago one of
our clients registered the domain name microsoftsucks.com or
microsoftsux.com and within 2 days of creation we received legal threats.

They were not from MS directly but some lawyer firm that claimed to handle
trademark enforcement on behalf of them.

What was odd was, they couldn't do anything about us owning the domain but
claimed any services (email, web site) that were created would bring down
the rath of Redmond upon us. So we could have the domain name, just couldn't
use it for anything.

So it sat here for years, more than a decade with an empty zone record.

So they do seem touchy about it.

-bruce
***@ripco.com

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Bruce,

Julien ?LIE

Oh, another encoding issue :-)

Post by Julien ÉLIE
I'm wondering whether there couldn't be legal issues with that
(maintaining a list of microsoft.public.* newsgroup names matching
Microsoft products, now that the officiel msnews.microsoft.com server is
no longer here).

For what it's worth, not exactly the same thing but close, years ago one of
our clients registered the domain name microsoftsucks.com or
microsoftsux.com and within 2 days of creation we received legal threats.

Thanks for your message.
It shows they are monitoring the use of their mark.

So they do seem touchy about it.

The difference here is that these domain names are defaming. I don't
know how sensitive they would be for a public Usenet apple.* hierarchy
or for new microsoft.* newsgroups with Office365, Teams, Windows 11 names.
And moreover if they read offensive discussions in these (unmoderated)
newsgroups.
One could argue there already are public web sites with similar forums;
yet, moderation and removal of messages are possible in such centralized
forums...

[Russ Allbery]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
I'm wondering whether there couldn't be legal issues with that
(maintaining a list of microsoft.public.* newsgroup names matching
Microsoft products, now that the officiel msnews.microsoft.com server is
no longer here).

I am quite dubious there's a *winning* legal issue, given that this is an
example of a trademark being used in precisely the way that it was
intended to be used. The groups are for discussing the Microsoft products
identified with the trademarks used in the group names, so there is no
market confusion.

Of course, as is always the case with legal anything, being on the correct
side mostly doesn't matter because the process of being sued is
sufficiently awful that no one would want to stick around and win the
resulting case.

I don't think Microsoft would care enough to complain, particularly given
that they started the newsgroups themselves and they've been around for
years (so there's also a principle of estoppel involved). I'm sure there
are unofficial Microsoft product forums all over the place (Reddit, for
instance) that use trademarks routinely and no one cares. But without an
official contact at Microsoft, there's always some level of uncertainty.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Responding to myself,

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Maybe I could send a message in a few active newsgroups to probe what
still existing users want.  They may already have an idea of useful
newsgroups to create.

In the thread "Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups" in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
(<news:sbi7j3$r53$***@news.trigofacile.com>), 4 persons answered.

Basically, they do not see any point in creating new newsgroups in
microsoft.* because they already have newsgroups in alt.* for new
Microsoft products.
A few legacy newsgroups like the one for Windows XP are still used in
the microsoft.* hierarchy. People don't mind reading newsgroups from
different hierarchies (alt.*, microsoft.*, comp.*, local ones...) in
their news reader.

Note to Jason: they spoke about the difficulty to add groups to comp.*
(a hierarchy which would otherwise have been likely to be used to
discuss current Microsoft products). There are still Windows 95
newsgroups in comp.*; hope the new Big Eight board will give more
freshness to the hierarchy.

Currently, they prefer to go on adding groups in alt.* that suit their
needs.


And the other point for microsoft.* is the removal of dead groups (where
no one would respond to a question posted to them, even though they seem
empty). There is no consensus. It is either "no, don't touch the
hierarchy" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".


To put into a nutshell, I am under the impression people got used to
using other hierarchies than microsoft.* and it is not obvious that
there is a wish to resurrect it...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Responding to myself,

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Maybe I could send a message in a few active newsgroups to probe what
still existing users want.  They may already have an idea of useful
newsgroups to create.

In the thread "Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups" in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Basically, they do not see any point in creating new newsgroups in
microsoft.* because they already have newsgroups in alt.* for new
Microsoft products.
A few legacy newsgroups like the one for Windows XP are still used in
the microsoft.* hierarchy. People don't mind reading newsgroups from
different hierarchies (alt.*, microsoft.*, comp.*, local ones...) in
their news reader.

The issue would have been the same for both comp.* and alt.*. Even if
those of us outside the discussion taking place observed that new groups
in comp.* and alt.* were specifically redundant of counterpart groups
already in microsoft.public.*, the Microsoft News administrator had no
ability to thwart a proposal to create a group in an international
hierarchy.

Julien, you did too good a job convincing people that microsoft.public.*
would be a nonviable hierarchy once the Microsoft News server was taken
off line, so no one made any serious attempts to start groups for
subsequent Microsoft products there. You took that option off the table.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Note to Jason: they spoke about the difficulty to add groups to comp.*
(a hierarchy which would otherwise have been likely to be used to
discuss current Microsoft products). There are still Windows 95
newsgroups in comp.*; hope the new Big Eight board will give more
freshness to the hierarchy.
Currently, they prefer to go on adding groups in alt.* that suit their
needs.

fwiw, the group names in alt.comp.* are reasonably good. A redundant
group in comp.* for Windows 11 would be a bad thing at this point.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
And the other point for microsoft.* is the removal of dead groups (where
no one would respond to a question posted to them, even though they seem
empty). There is no consensus. It is either "no, don't touch the
hierarchy" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".

Rmgroups are not now and never have been a known method of starting
viable discussion in groups not being removed.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
To put into a nutshell, I am under the impression people got used to
using other hierarchies than microsoft.* and it is not obvious that
there is a wish to resurrect it...

It's a moot issue, Julien. You made it so.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Julien, you did too good a job convincing people that microsoft.public.*
would be a nonviable hierarchy once the Microsoft News server was taken
off line, so no one made any serious attempts to start groups for
subsequent Microsoft products there. You took that option off the table.

We're speaking of discussions that took place more than a decade ago.
I am not under the impression I "took that option off the table". I
just sent a final checkgroups for the remaining ~500 groups still
active, that is to say the last ones that remained in
msnews.microsoft.com several months. There were more than ~1700 groups,
most of them without traffic, and I still think it was a good move from
Microsoft to clean and rationalize that huge list before stopping their
news server.
I then left the list of groups as-is, clearly stating that the PGP key
was initially created and trusted for the "replication" of the list of
newsgroups present in the Microsoft's news server.
If somebody wanted to go on "maintaining" the hierarchy and give it
another life, he could have taken that path
(<news:hs9i8m$ia$***@news.trigofacile.com> amongst other articles I sent).

As guessed in 2010, it was not bound to happen. You even said "the
chances of someone reviving a brand-specific customer support hierarchy
after abandoned by the manufacturer are only slightly better than
Microsoft writing a decent newsreader"
(<news:hs9sf6$emq$***@news.albasani.net>).

So, here, I just wish to recall I never said microsoft.public.* would be
a nonviable hierarchy, nor I took that option off the table...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Julien, you did too good a job convincing people that microsoft.public.*
would be a nonviable hierarchy once the Microsoft News server was taken
off line, so no one made any serious attempts to start groups for
subsequent Microsoft products there. You took that option off the table.

We're speaking of discussions that took place more than a decade ago.
I am not under the impression I "took that option off the table". I
just sent a final checkgroups for the remaining ~500 groups still
active, that is to say the last ones that remained in
msnews.microsoft.com several months.

I thought I recalled you had sent rmgroups for the remaining groups.
My error. I apologize.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
. . .

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Julien, you did too good a job convincing people that microsoft.public.*
would be a nonviable hierarchy once the Microsoft News server was taken
off line, so no one made any serious attempts to start groups for
subsequent Microsoft products there. You took that option off the table.

We're speaking of discussions that took place more than a decade ago.
I am not under the impression I "took that option off the table". I
just sent a final checkgroups for the remaining ~500 groups still
active, that is to say the last ones that remained in
msnews.microsoft.com several months.

I thought I recalled you had sent rmgroups for the remaining groups.
My error. I apologize.

No problem!
It is true that we discussed several options at that time, amongst which
were sending rmgroups for the remaining groups. That path was not taken
(thanks to the share of your point of view, as well as others, at that
time, pros and cons).

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman

I just sent a final checkgroups for the remaining ~500 groups still
active, that is to say the last ones that remained in
msnews.microsoft.com several months.

I thought I recalled you had sent rmgroups for the remaining groups.

The question now is whether a bit more of house-keeping should be done,
to resume the list to ~100 groups or so (at least on news servers still
honouring these control messages). It may make the hierarchy more
readable and usable for possible newcomers.

Too bad there are not many general newsgroups (components usually
contain the version: "windows98", "windowsxp", etc. and not "windows.98"
or "windows.xp") so a general catch-all newsgroup cannot be preserved.
And I am unsure creating such general groups would be a good thing
anyway at that time.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
In the thread "Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups" in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Basically, they do not see any point in creating new newsgroups in
microsoft.* because they already have newsgroups in alt.* for new
Microsoft products.
A few legacy newsgroups like the one for Windows XP are still used in
the microsoft.* hierarchy.  People don't mind reading newsgroups from
different hierarchies (alt.*, microsoft.*, comp.*, local ones...) in
their news reader.
Currently, they prefer to go on adding groups in alt.* that suit their
needs.

As I will no longer send any control messages for microsoft.*, this
hierarchy can now be advertised as unmanaged. The syncable server
msnews.microsoft.com, contact, URL and key information can be removed
from control.ctl.
The comment could be changed to say that the current list of newsgroups
reflect the ones present in msnews.microsoft.com in May 2010. Then
Microsoft began closing newsgroups and migrating users to Microsoft
forums that include Microsoft Answers, TechNet and MSDN. Their news
server was discontinued in October 2010.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Note to Jason:  they spoke about the difficulty to add groups to comp.*
(a hierarchy which would otherwise have been likely to be used to
discuss current Microsoft products).  There are still Windows 95
newsgroups in comp.*; hope the new Big Eight board will give more
freshness to the hierarchy.

I still reckon that if new newsgroups for Microsoft products are wished,
the comp.* hierarchy is a suitable one (besides of course alt.* where
recent newsgroups exist for latest Windows 11).

Instead of Windows 95 newsgroups still present in comp.*, a more generic
one could be useful for Windows and maybe another generic one for
Microsoft 365 products...

[Thomas Hochstein]

Post by Julien ÉLIE

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Note to Jason:  they spoke about the difficulty to add groups to comp.*
(a hierarchy which would otherwise have been likely to be used to
discuss current Microsoft products).  There are still Windows 95
newsgroups in comp.*; hope the new Big Eight board will give more
freshness to the hierarchy.

I still reckon that if new newsgroups for Microsoft products are wished,
the comp.* hierarchy is a suitable one (besides of course alt.* where
recent newsgroups exist for latest Windows 11).

That would be appropriate, yes. Back in 2010, some people made a list with
replacements for the 129 German language groups in microsoft.public.de.*
[1]; most of the active groups already had a (mostly) matching newsgroup
in de.*, and some missing ones were created (or moved), i.e. for
VisualBasic and MS Office components.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Instead of Windows 95 newsgroups still present in comp.*, a more generic
one could be useful for Windows and maybe another generic one for
Microsoft 365 products...

Yep.

-thh

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE

Post by Julien ÉLIE
In the thread "Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups" in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Basically, they do not see any point in creating new newsgroups in
microsoft.* because they already have newsgroups in alt.* for new
Microsoft products.
A few legacy newsgroups like the one for Windows XP are still used in
the microsoft.* hierarchy.  People don't mind reading newsgroups from
different hierarchies (alt.*, microsoft.*, comp.*, local ones...) in
their news reader.
Currently, they prefer to go on adding groups in alt.* that suit their
needs.

As I will no longer send any control messages for microsoft.*, this
hierarchy can now be advertised as unmanaged.

I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.

In an administered hierarchy, the hierarchy administrator sends the
newgroup message on behalf of the proponent. In an unadministered
hierarchy, the proponent sends the newgroup message himself.

In a former institutional hierarchy, there can be no proponents. If the
institution itself isn't out of business and wants to resume
administering the hierarchy itself (which has never happened), that
would be acceptable. But unless that happens, just leave the newsgroups
as they were before the decision was made to stop maintaining
newsgroups. No one at all should issue control messages.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
. . .

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.

"Unmanaged" means there's no longer a control.ctl entry for that
hierarchy. The default one for control.ctl applies:

## Default (for any group)
newgroup:*:*:mail
rmgroup:*:*:mail

The list of microsoft.* newsgroups still remains in the active and
newsgroups file in ftp.isc.org.


As I suggested to keep a comment, I agree "unmanaged" is not the right
term. Maybe the term "historic" is better?
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=historic

Like un.* which has the following entry, but for microsoft.* we no
longer need the PGP entries, but just keep the first 2 drop lines.

## UN (*HISTORIC* -- The United Nations)
#
# This hierarchy is not entirely defunct, but it receives very little
# traffic and is included primarily for the sake of completeness.
#
# Admin group: un.public.usenet.admin
# *PGP* See comment at top of file.
newgroup:*:un.*:drop
rmgroup:*:un.*:drop
checkgroups:***@news.itu.int:un.*:verify-***@news.itu.int
newgroup:***@news.itu.int:un.*:verify-***@news.itu.int
rmgroup:***@news.itu.int:un.*:verify-***@news.itu.int

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.

"Unmanaged" means there's no longer a control.ctl entry for that
hierarchy.

We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
should be referred to in that manner.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
## Default (for any group)
newgroup:*:*:mail
rmgroup:*:*:mail

I forgot about that entry.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
The list of microsoft.* newsgroups still remains in the active and
newsgroups file in ftp.isc.org.
As I suggested to keep a comment, I agree "unmanaged" is not the right
term. Maybe the term "historic" is better?
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=historic

You do list a number of DEFUNCT hierarchies in control.ctl.

In the other thread, I nominated the category "former institutional
hierarchy".

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.

"Unmanaged" means there's no longer a control.ctl entry for that
hierarchy.

We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
should be referred to in that manner.

OK, I'll change the "unmanaged" term I used, which was not appropriate.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE
As I suggested to keep a comment, I agree "unmanaged" is not the right
term. Maybe the term "historic" is better?

In the other thread, I nominated the category "former institutional
hierarchy".

All of the following hierarchies are not institutional ones:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged

I'm looking for a better term. Maybe "legacy" or "unreferenced"? (or
calling them "historic" too)

As or microsoft.*, it can fall back in the existing "historic" category.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'm making the same comment here as I made in the other thread. Please
do not categorize it as "unmanaged". It's a former institutional
hierarchy. There should be no automatic processing of control messages.

"Unmanaged" means there's no longer a control.ctl entry for that
hierarchy.

We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
should be referred to in that manner.

OK, I'll change the "unmanaged" term I used, which was not appropriate.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE
As I suggested to keep a comment, I agree "unmanaged" is not the right
term. Maybe the term "historic" is better?

In the other thread, I nominated the category "former institutional
hierarchy".

http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged

Goodness. That's a long list. Yes I see former regional hierarchies in there.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
I'm looking for a better term. Maybe "legacy" or "unreferenced"? (or
calling them "historic" too)
As or microsoft.*, it can fall back in the existing "historic" category.

If you don't like "former", then "historic" is better than "legacy". I
don't care for "unreferenced" given that you are making a reference.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
should be referred to in that manner.

I've at last reorganized the listing, following our previous discussion.
Only alt.* and free.* are now in the unmanaged page. The previously
listed ones were now in the historic section.

http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
We've always referred to alt.* and free.* as unmanaged or
unadministered. I don't think a hierarchy de-listed from control.ctl
should be referred to in that manner.

I've at last reorganized the listing, following our previous discussion.
Only alt.* and free.* are now in the unmanaged page. The previously
listed ones were now in the historic section.
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged

That's reasonable. Thank you

I don't have any new comments about the categories that you haven't
heard me make in the past.

Shouldn't mod.* be a reserved hierarchy? I was going to ask about net.*
as well, but you listed it as historic.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE
I've at last reorganized the listing, following our previous discussion.
Only alt.* and free.* are now in the unmanaged page. The previously
listed ones were now in the historic section.
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged

That's reasonable. Thank you

Thanks for having had a look.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I don't have any new comments about the categories that you haven't
heard me make in the past.

Yes, sure, I remember. The point is that these web pages are a visual
representation of the control.ctl / PGPKEYS / newsgroups files. Changes
should be made upstream.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Shouldn't mod.* be a reserved hierarchy? I was going to ask about net.*
as well, but you listed it as historic.

For example, if mod.* should be listed as reserved (which it could, like
example.*, general.* or test.*), the change to do is in the following file:
https://github.com/rra/control-archive/blob/master/config/mod
"type: defunct" should be changed to "type: reserved"

Incidentally, I see in
https://github.com/rra/control-archive/blob/master/forms/control.ctl.pre

that example.*, local.* and private.* (other already reserved groups)
could also be added to this special entry:

## Special reserved groups
newgroup:*:control|general|junk|test|to:drop
rmgroup:*:control|general|junk|test|to:drop




If you already have a list of such changes to do, you may want to put it
into an issue in https://github.com/rra/control-archive/issues
When Russ has a bit of time for that, it will facilitate the integration
instead of digging in threads in this newsgroup.
(Or course, a direct pull request with the changed files would be even
better if you happen to know how git works.)


net.* is said to be "a failed experiment which has now been abandoned"
in the comments. Would you have seen it in another category than historic?
As the control.ctl entry is "drop" for newgroup and rmgroup, it is not a
"public managed" hierarchy. I previously listed it under "public
unmanaged" but now that only alt.* and free.* are considered to be
unmanaged, I moved all these hierarchies without a control.ctl entry
with an explicit e-mail adress to the "historic" state.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Julien <***@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:

Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
hierarchies are listed:

it-alt.*
oesterreich.*

Post by Julien ÉLIE

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Shouldn't mod.* be a reserved hierarchy? I was going to ask about net.*
as well, but you listed it as historic.

For example, if mod.* should be listed as reserved (which it could, like
https://github.com/rra/control-archive/blob/master/config/mod
"type: defunct" should be changed to "type: reserved"
Incidentally, I see in
https://github.com/rra/control-archive/blob/master/forms/control.ctl.pre
that example.*, local.* and private.* (other already reserved groups)
## Special reserved groups
newgroup:*:control|general|junk|test|to:drop
rmgroup:*:control|general|junk|test|to:drop
If you already have a list of such changes to do, you may want to put it
into an issue in https://github.com/rra/control-archive/issues

Ok. I'll see if I can do that.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
When Russ has a bit of time for that, it will facilitate the integration
instead of digging in threads in this newsgroup.
(Or course, a direct pull request with the changed files would be even
better if you happen to know how git works.)
net.* is said to be "a failed experiment which has now been abandoned"
in the comments. Would you have seen it in another category than historic?
As the control.ctl entry is "drop" for newgroup and rmgroup, it is not a
"public managed" hierarchy. I previously listed it under "public
unmanaged" but now that only alt.* and free.* are considered to be
unmanaged, I moved all these hierarchies without a control.ctl entry
with an explicit e-mail adress to the "historic" state.

net.* was of course the pre-Great Renaming top-level hierarchy in B News
days. Usenet II reused the defunct hierarchy because it hadn't been
reserved, but that's not the reason for failure. I suppose leave it
listed as historic but add a note about its pre-Great Renaming use.

mod.* was the B News top-level hierarchy for moderated groups before
things were recoded so that a proto-article could be sent in email to
the moderator in the newsreader.

This hierarchy should definitely be reserved.

fa.* (from ARPANET) were gatewayed mailing lists. I have no idea how
clients worked in B News days, but I'm guessing that you had the same
problem as moderated groups, no way to send the proto-article to the
list posting address with the newsreader.

I'd reserve that too.

I recall fj.* (from Japan), which I think were gated mailing lists as well.
Good heavens. It's listed as still active.

I'll write up some notes and send it to github.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
it-alt.*
oesterreich.*

Oh indeed, I could especially mark them as "unmanaged" too.
I see there is no newsgroups for these two hierarchies in the
ftp.isc.org newsgroups file though, contrary to alt.* and free.*.

oesterreich.* seems to still be somehow active as their web site was
updated in 2022 :
http://www.tahina.priv.at/~cm/oe/index.en.html

Post by Adam H. Kerman
mod.* was the B News top-level hierarchy for moderated groups before
things were recoded so that a proto-article could be sent in email to
the moderator in the newsreader.
fa.* (from ARPANET) were gatewayed mailing lists. I have no idea how
clients worked in B News days, but I'm guessing that you had the same
problem as moderated groups, no way to send the proto-article to the
list posting address with the newsreader.

[...]> I'll write up some notes and send it to github.

These are pretty useful and interesting information.
Worthwhile keeping somewhere. I open a new thread about that.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
it-alt.*
oesterreich.*

While looking at making the change in the web pages, I see we did not
speak about other alternative hierarchies.

Should no.alt.* and nl-alt.* also considered as "unmanaged" hierarchies?
They both have an associated PGP key but I do not know what is the
policy to create a newsgroup? Is it intended after any demand of
someone and a signed control article is then sent, or is there a
validation by a sort of Board?

no.alt.* has 41 newsgroups listed in ftp.isc.org, nl-alt.* only 3.


And what for de.alt.*? Shouldn't it be considered as "unmanaged"?
If I remember well, there's a possibility to create any newsgroup in
de.alt.* (its control.ctl entry has a doit for a newgroup control
article) and for the sake of not removing them with de.* PGP-signed
checkgroups, they are included in de.* checkgroups.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
it-alt.*
oesterreich.*

While looking at making the change in the web pages, I see we did not
speak about other alternative hierarchies.

I had simply noticed it-alt.* and oesterreich.* in rone's unified
control.clt and your generated list. I don't have first hand knowledge.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Should no.alt.* and nl-alt.* also considered as "unmanaged" hierarchies?
They both have an associated PGP key but I do not know what is the
policy to create a newsgroup? Is it intended after any demand of
someone and a signed control article is then sent, or is there a
validation by a sort of Board?
no.alt.* has 41 newsgroups listed in ftp.isc.org, nl-alt.* only 3.

I cannot guess what the policies are, but if the control messages
use a PGP key, even if there is some informality about adding a group to
checkgroups, I'd call that "managed", given that the proponent would
never send the newgroup message himself. The keyholder has got to be
considered to be the hierarchy manager for this purpose.

This has the advantage that there can be checkgroups issued regularly,
an impossibility in truly unmanaged hierarchies.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
And what for de.alt.*? Shouldn't it be considered as "unmanaged"?
If I remember well, there's a possibility to create any newsgroup in
de.alt.* (its control.ctl entry has a doit for a newgroup control
article) and for the sake of not removing them with de.* PGP-signed
checkgroups, they are included in de.* checkgroups.

Is that why no.alt.* control messages are signed as well, because these
newsgroups are listed in the checkgroups for no.*?

It seems to me that the hierarchy manager's main job is to list groups
he recognizes in checkgroups, even if there are groups newgrouped in a
second-level hierachy with informal procedures.

If there's a checkgroups, that provides satisfactory evidence of
hierarchy management. Similarly, a PGP key provides satisfactory
evidence of hierarchy management.

But if the proponent and not the hierarchy administrator issues newgroup
messages in de.alt.* that would never include a PGP key, that requires
a comment.

I would recommend against listing no.alt.*, nl-alt.*, and de.alt.* as
unmanaged.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
it-alt.*
oesterreich.*

While looking at making the change in the web pages, I see we did not
speak about other alternative hierarchies.

I had simply noticed it-alt.* and oesterreich.* in rone's unified
control.clt and your generated list. I don't have first hand knowledge.

You're one of the most knowledgeable about Usenet hierarchies, that's
why I asked. :)

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Should no.alt.* and nl-alt.* also considered as "unmanaged" hierarchies?
They both have an associated PGP key but I do not know what is the
policy to create a newsgroup? Is it intended after any demand of
someone and a signed control article is then sent, or is there a
validation by a sort of Board?

I cannot guess what the policies are, but if the control messages
use a PGP key, even if there is some informality about adding a group to
checkgroups, I'd call that "managed", given that the proponent would
never send the newgroup message himself. The keyholder has got to be
considered to be the hierarchy manager for this purpose.
This has the advantage that there can be checkgroups issued regularly,
an impossibility in truly unmanaged hierarchies.
If there's a checkgroups, that provides satisfactory evidence of
hierarchy management. Similarly, a PGP key provides satisfactory
evidence of hierarchy management.

Agreed.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
But if the proponent and not the hierarchy administrator issues newgroup
messages in de.alt.* that would never include a PGP key, that requires
a comment.

I believe it is the case.

For instance, the last de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co created in 2012:
https://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/de/de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co.gz

Message-ID:
<newgroup-dac.iphone+ipad+co-***@thorongil.babylonsounds.com>
From: Simon Paquet <[snipped]>
Control: newgroup de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co
Newsgroups: de.alt.admin,de.alt.fan.ipod
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:27:03 +0200

de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co is an unmoderated newsgroup, it has been
discussed in de.alt.admin and there was no significant protest.

Bitte richten Sie die unmoderierte Newsgroup de.alt.iphone+ipad+co ein.
Ueber die Einrichtung wurde in de.alt.admin diskutiert und es gab
keinen heftigen Protest.

For your newsgroups file:
de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co Apples mobile Geraete und ihre Software.




And afterwards, Thomas takes this newsgroup into account when sending
checkgroups for the de.* hierarchy.
And he also cleans up no longer used groups in de.alt.* when appropriate.
That's the sort of things we could mention in a revived "hierarchy
notes" file that I could display along with hierarchy information.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I would recommend against listing no.alt.*, nl-alt.*, and de.alt.* as
unmanaged.

Noted. Thanks for your motivated reasons. I agree with you.

BTW, I've added it-alt.* and oesterreich.* in the list of unmanaged
hierarchies:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Now that I've glanced at control.ctl again, two other unmanaged
it-alt.*
oesterreich.*

While looking at making the change in the web pages, I see we did not
speak about other alternative hierarchies.

I had simply noticed it-alt.* and oesterreich.* in rone's unified
control.clt and your generated list. I don't have first hand knowledge.

You're one of the most knowledgeable about Usenet hierarchies, that's
why I asked. :)

I don't read articles in groups in those hierarchies. The Italian and
German words I recognize are mainly from music lessons.

Post by Julien ÉLIE

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Should no.alt.* and nl-alt.* also considered as "unmanaged" hierarchies?
They both have an associated PGP key but I do not know what is the
policy to create a newsgroup? Is it intended after any demand of
someone and a signed control article is then sent, or is there a
validation by a sort of Board?

I cannot guess what the policies are, but if the control messages
use a PGP key, even if there is some informality about adding a group to
checkgroups, I'd call that "managed", given that the proponent would
never send the newgroup message himself. The keyholder has got to be
considered to be the hierarchy manager for this purpose.
This has the advantage that there can be checkgroups issued regularly,
an impossibility in truly unmanaged hierarchies.
If there's a checkgroups, that provides satisfactory evidence of
hierarchy management. Similarly, a PGP key provides satisfactory
evidence of hierarchy management.

Agreed.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
But if the proponent and not the hierarchy administrator issues newgroup
messages in de.alt.* that would never include a PGP key, that requires
a comment.

I believe it is the case.
https://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/de/de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co.gz
From: Simon Paquet <[snipped]>
Control: newgroup de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co
Newsgroups: de.alt.admin,de.alt.fan.ipod
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:27:03 +0200
de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co is an unmoderated newsgroup, it has been
discussed in de.alt.admin and there was no significant protest.
Bitte richten Sie die unmoderierte Newsgroup de.alt.iphone+ipad+co ein.
Ueber die Einrichtung wurde in de.alt.admin diskutiert und es gab
keinen heftigen Protest.
de.alt.comm.iphone+ipad+co Apples mobile Geraete und ihre Software.
And afterwards, Thomas takes this newsgroup into account when sending
checkgroups for the de.* hierarchy.
And he also cleans up no longer used groups in de.alt.* when appropriate.

He won't list the group in the next checkgroups. I don't think I've
noticed that he issues rmgroups for defunct de.alt.* groups.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
That's the sort of things we could mention in a revived "hierarchy
notes" file that I could display along with hierarchy information.

I appreciate your enthusiasm. That file might be edited every 20 years
or so, heh.

Post by Julien ÉLIE

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I would recommend against listing no.alt.*, nl-alt.*, and de.alt.* as
unmanaged.

Noted. Thanks for your motivated reasons. I agree with you.
BTW, I've added it-alt.* and oesterreich.* in the list of unmanaged
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=unmanaged

Thank you.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE
And afterwards, Thomas takes this newsgroup into account when sending
checkgroups for the de.* hierarchy.
And he also cleans up no longer used groups in de.alt.* when appropriate.

He won't list the group in the next checkgroups. I don't think I've
noticed that he issues rmgroups for defunct de.alt.* groups.

There are PGP-signed rmgroup control articles for the removals too.
Example with the last one removed:
https://ftp.isc.org/usenet/control/de/de.alt.rec.flugsimulation.gz

Control: rmgroup de.alt.rec.flugsimulation
Message-ID:
<rmgroup-de.alt.rec.flugsimulation-***@thangorodrim.ancalagon.de>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2022 21:29:34 -0000


But the From address (at thh.name) is not the one expected by the
control.ctl entry (at dana.de) so they were not processed by ftp.isc.org.
However, checkgroups for de.* are properly processed, and the de.alt.*
newsgroups are then removed at that time according to the ftp.isc.org rules.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE
That's the sort of things we could mention in a revived "hierarchy
notes" file that I could display along with hierarchy information.

I appreciate your enthusiasm. That file might be edited every 20 years
or so, heh.

:)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE
And afterwards, Thomas takes this newsgroup into account when sending
checkgroups for the de.* hierarchy.
And he also cleans up no longer used groups in de.alt.* when appropriate.

He won't list the group in the next checkgroups. I don't think I've
noticed that he issues rmgroups for defunct de.alt.* groups.

There are PGP-signed rmgroup control articles for the removals too.
https://ftp.isc.org/usenet/control/de/de.alt.rec.flugsimulation.gz
Control: rmgroup de.alt.rec.flugsimulation
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2022 21:29:34 -0000
But the From address (at thh.name) is not the one expected by the
control.ctl entry (at dana.de) so they were not processed by ftp.isc.org.

That's very interesting; thanks.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
However, checkgroups for de.* are properly processed, and the de.alt.*
newsgroups are then removed at that time according to the ftp.isc.org rules.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE
. . .

[Thomas Hochstein]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
He won't list the group in the next checkgroups. I don't think I've
noticed that he issues rmgroups for defunct de.alt.* groups.

Newsgroups in de.alt.* are removed after a discussion period of at least
7-14 days when there is no "too strong" protest. They are removed by
rmgroup messages sent and signed by the proponent. As most people won't
execute control messages not signed by a hierarchy key, they are really
removed when they are subsequently dropped from the (joined) checkgroups
for de.* (including de.alt.*) sent by the hierarchy maintainers.

All other newsgroups in de.* (excluding de.alt.*) are removed by a formal
process of (at least) a RfD, submitted to a moderated newsgroup and posted
by the hierarchy maintainers, followed by a discussion period of (at
least) 14 days, followed by a CfV with a voting period of (at least) for
weeks, needing a majority and a quorum, followed by a result, all
according to a set of rules, posted to a moderated group and arbitrated by
hierarchy maintainers, who will sent and sign the control messages after a
objection period has passed.

That holds true even if the proponent for the removal of a de.alt.* group
_is_ the member of the hierarchy maintainer team tasked with sending the
checkgroups. :-)

-thh

[Thomas Hochstein]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
But if the proponent and not the hierarchy administrator issues newgroup
messages in de.alt.* that would never include a PGP key, that requires
a comment.

de.alt.* had been modelled after alt.*, as de.* had been modelled after
the Big8, so control messages for de.alt.* are traditionally sent by
proponents (signed with their keys) or by someone acting for the
proponent. Those groups are added to or removed from the checkgroups for
de.* by the hierarchy maintainer team; while - theoretically - just a
technical necessity, that makes the hierarchy maintainers the final
arbiter of disputes whether due process was followed before the control
message was send.

Historically, the rights and sinecures of de.alt.* have been jealously
defended against perceived infringements by hierarchy maintainers. :-)
Today, that's mainly moot as there are not many users left (and even less
interested in hierarchy administration or technically inclined or
qualified to sent control message).

Anyway, all groups in the checkgroups are created (and all missing groups
have been removed) by due process; it's just a very different process for
de.alt.*

-thh

[Thomas Hochstein]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
And what for de.alt.*? Shouldn't it be considered as "unmanaged"?

It's not really unmanaged, as de.* (including de.alt.*) is a managed
hierarchy, so de.alt.* is included in checkgroups messages for de.*.
Historically, that was the only option, and after a spectacularly
unsuccessful attempt with a scoped checkgroups we never tried again.

Today, it's mostly moot, due to declining Usenet usage and even more
declining interest and participation in "hierarchy management" of any
kind.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
If I remember well, there's a possibility to create any newsgroup in
de.alt.* (its control.ctl entry has a doit for a newgroup control
article) and for the sake of not removing them with de.* PGP-signed
checkgroups, they are included in de.* checkgroups.

Yes and no; only "legitimate" de.alt.* groups are included in the
checkgroups for de.*, i.e. new groups are not added automatically, but by
hand by someone reading de.alt.admin, the "administrative" group for
de.alt.*

Excluding de.alt.*, de.* is using a formalised RfD/CfV process modelled
after the Big 8 in the 90s while de.alt.* has a kind of consensus-based
process: when a proposal is posted and there is no "strong" protest in the
next week (or two weeks), the group may be created by a newgroup message
sent and signed by the proponent (or someone on his or her behalf, if the
proponent lacks the expertise to send those messages). Theoretically,
every news server operator can then decide for him- or herself whether
(s)he wants to add that group or not, which ultimately presupposes that
(s)he's either reading de.alt.admin or just listening to their users;
honoring every newgroup message is not a good idea (as in alt.*). In
practice, however, server operators usually simply follow the checkgroups
for de.* - be it by setting up de.alt.* groups only after the checkgroups
has been received or by removing them again if not included in the
checkgroups. So in fact the person sending out the checkgroups for .de*
decides which groups in de.alt.* are "legitimate", i.e. were rightly set
up due to a lack of "too strong" protest.

So we have, on one hand, de.* (excluding de.alt.*) with the moderator (or
moderation) of de.admin.news.announce as hierarchy maintainer (or a team
of hierarchy maintainers, since 1997) and strict rules, a formal process
of RfDs, discussion periods, CfV and votes, where all control messages are
sent by the hierarchy maintainer team and signed with their key - and, on
the other hand, de.alt.*, with a fairness based approach, where control
messages (new/rmgroups) are sent and signed by the proponent.
Theoretically, both systems co-exist; in fact, the hierarchy maintainer
team has the last say even on groups in de.alt.* due to their inclusion in
the checkgroups for the whole hierarchy. While mostly theoretical, there
were instances of "control message wars" when not all participants agreed
wether there was "strong protest" or not.

Today, that's mostly just of historical interest, as most people able to
send control messages or conduct votes (or even interested in discussing
changes in the list of newsgroups) that are still active _are_ members of
the hierarchy maintainer team. *shrug*

tl;dr: Technically and factually, de.* is a managed hierarchy; newgroup
(and rmgroup) messages for de.alt.* are vetted before inclusion in the
checkgroups to check that "due process" was followed.

[Rink]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Hi all,
As we speak of historic hierarchies (net.*), the microsoft.* one has
also been stalled since 2009 when the msnews.microsoft.com server was
shut down.
Nonetheless, the newsgroups are still in the wide, and some of them are
active.
So maybe microsoft.* should remain in control.ctl but the comment adapted?
# Control articles for that hierarchy are not issued by Microsoft itself
# but by a Usenet active participant in order to improve the quality of
# http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx
=> I suggest to make it unmanaged and remove PGP key & administrative
stuff.  Unless someone has a better advice about that?
Web forums (https://answers.microsoft.com/) are now used by Microsoft.
I doubt the PGP key will ever serve again.  Its purpose was to propagate
changes made to the official newsgroups from msnews.microsoft.com.
I still have the private key, though, and will consider deleting it.

I do not understand what you suggest
(because I do not know enough about control.ctl, PGP, keys, unmanaged,
etc.),
but I only want to say that the newsgroup
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
still is *THE* most busiest English language newsgroup about Windows-XP.

In 2021 per month: 100, 104, 86, 61, 315 messages.
In june 2021 already 298 messages.
Thousands of newsgroups will be jealous about those figures :-)


I remember that I had installed the microsoft newsserver.
When they switched off, we simply followed all
microsoft.* newsgroups on other newsservers.
I thought it was in 2013, but Wikipedia says june 2010.

If I understand correctly, you want to introduce new microsoft.* newsgroups?

Main English language newsgroups for other Windows OS are:
alt.windows7.general
alt.comp.os.windows-8
alt.comp.os.windows-10

For me (and a lot of other people) webforums are no alternative to usenet.

Rink

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Rink,

Post by Rink
but I only want to say that the newsgroup
    microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
still is *THE* most busiest English language newsgroup about Windows-XP.
In 2021 per month: 100, 104, 86, 61, 315 messages.
In june 2021 already 298 messages.
Thousands of newsgroups will be jealous about those figures  :-)

Yup, the most active newsgroups over the last year (July 2020-June 2021)
are:

microsoft.public.windowsxp.general 2083
microsoft.public.it.office.excel 1579
microsoft.public.fr.excel 1363
microsoft.public.de.money 609
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion 487
microsoft.public.de.excel 338
microsoft.public.fr.outlook 335
microsoft.public.excel.programming 323
microsoft.public.excel.misc 254
microsoft.public.outlook.general 253
microsoft.public.fr.windows.server 204
microsoft.public.word.docmanagement 122
microsoft.public.fr.office 107
microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions 107
microsoft.public.excel 104
microsoft.public.es.excel 93
microsoft.public.fr.windowsxp 80
microsoft.public.adsi.general 76
microsoft.public.nntp.test 63
microsoft.public.nl.office.excel 58
microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript 55
microsoft.public.es.word 54
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support 51
microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.caching 45
microsoft.public.powerpoint 43
microsoft.public.it.office.access 43
microsoft.public.outlook 42
microsoft.public.test.here 38
microsoft.public.fr.access 36
microsoft.public.word.pagelayout 35
microsoft.public.word.newusers 30
microsoft.public.fr.word 30
microsoft.public.access 28
microsoft.public.mac.office.word 26
microsoft.public.greatplains 26
microsoft.public.es.access 26
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp 26
microsoft.public.windows.server.general 22
microsoft.public.excel.setup 21
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion 20

And there are also spams in most of them...
So basically, there are not many real active newsgroups left in the
hierarchy!


Specifically in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, people seem to
frequently complain about posts for more recent Windows versions than
XP. It is true that they are clearly missing in the microsoft.* hierarchy.

Post by Rink
I remember that I had installed the microsoft newsserver.
When they switched off, we simply followed all
microsoft.* newsgroups on other newsservers.
I thought it was in 2013, but Wikipedia says june 2010.

It was in 2010:
http://www.rxs-enterprises.org/fp/newsgroup-closure.aspx

"All public newsgroups will eventually be closed between June 1, 2010
and October 1, 2010. Microsoft will be closing newsgroups in a phased
approach, starting with the least active newsgroups and moving
eventually to more active ones throughout the course of the next six
months."

Post by Rink
If I understand correctly, you want to introduce new microsoft.* newsgroups?

It is currently at the state of a thought.

Post by Rink
    alt.windows7.general
    alt.comp.os.windows-8
    alt.comp.os.windows-10
For me (and a lot of other people) webforums are no alternative to usenet.

I totally understand.

There aren't many active newsgroups left in the microsoft.* hierarchy.
The question of using alt.* is good (a Windows 11 newsgroup can be
"created" there if needed, as well as other newsgroups).
If microsoft.public.windows-8, microsoft.public.windows-10 and
microsoft.public.windows-11 existed, would they be used? If people are
already accustomed to alt.comp.os.windows-8 and like, I am unsure adding
another newsgroup would be good...