Very Computer

by **John Wrenshal** » Wed, 03 Jun 1998 04:00:00

I've been using Netscape communicator to post to a few newsgroups, but
in some cases the posts seem to have vanished into thin air. Has anyone
else had similar problems? Can anyone recommend an alternative linux
program for posting news? (I need to include uue or mime jpeg files).

Thanks

John

by **Brian Mill** » Wed, 03 Jun 1998 04:00:00

>I've been using Netscape communicator to post to a few newsgroups, but
>in some cases the posts seem to have vanished into thin air. Has anyone
>else had similar problems? Can anyone recommend an alternative linux
>program for posting news? (I need to include uue or mime jpeg files).

I use slrn. I'm not sure how it does with jpeg files though...
none of the groups I read post jpegs really, so it hasn't been
an issue.

Good luck,
Brian
http://rickjames.sapien.net/kalamazoo_swimming

by **Alexander Vi** » Wed, 03 Jun 1998 04:00:00

Quote:>I've been using Netscape communicator to post to a few newsgroups, but
>in some cases the posts seem to have vanished into thin air. Has anyone
>else had similar problems? Can anyone recommend an alternative linux
>program for posting news? (I need to include uue or mime jpeg files).

Yep. tin/trn/slrn - you name it. BUT there are non-binary groups.
Any binary posting there is subject for cancel, no matter how it was
posted. Instead of posting binary (outside of alt.binaries.*, that is) put
it on FTP or webpage and post URL. BTW, alt.binaries.* are not carried by
many sites because of the space problems (sometime ago full USENET feed
was about 15G per day. alt.binaries constituted 50% of it. Other alt.*
gave 25%. Non-alt groups - the rest).

--
My theory is that someone's Emacs crashed on a very early version of Linux
while reading alt.flame and the resulting unholy combination of Elisp and
Minix code somehow managed to bootstrap itself and take on an independent
existence. -- James Raynard in c.u.b.f.m on nature of Albert Cahalan

by **Bub** » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00

> Yep. tin/trn/slrn - you name it. BUT there are non-binary groups.
> Any binary posting there is subject for cancel, no matter how it was
> posted. Instead of posting binary (outside of alt.binaries.*, that is) put
> it on FTP or webpage and post URL. BTW, alt.binaries.* are not carried by
> many sites because of the space problems (sometime ago full USENET feed
> was about 15G per day. alt.binaries constituted 50% of it. Other alt.*
> gave 25%. Non-alt groups - the rest).

It sounds unlikely that this is still the case. Some warez groups and
picture newsgroups post over 500 Megs/day on their own.

--
Bub
bub at videotron dot ca
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~sd_fort

" Spammers deserve to be taken out into the street and
shot on a public square to everyone's delight. "

by **Brad Felm** » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00

>> Yep. tin/trn/slrn - you name it. BUT there are non-binary groups.
>> Any binary posting there is subject for cancel, no matter how it was
>> posted. Instead of posting binary (outside of alt.binaries.*, that is) put
>> it on FTP or webpage and post URL. BTW, alt.binaries.* are not carried by
>> many sites because of the space problems (sometime ago full USENET feed
>> was about 15G per day. alt.binaries constituted 50% of it. Other alt.*
>> gave 25%. Non-alt groups - the rest).

>It sounds unlikely that this is still the case. Some warez groups and
>picture newsgroups post over 500 Megs/day on their own.

*WAY* over.
--
Brad Felmey

by **Anthony Argyri** » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00

>>I've been using Netscape communicator to post to a few newsgroups, but
>>in some cases the posts seem to have vanished into thin air. Has anyone
>>else had similar problems? Can anyone recommend an alternative linux
>>program for posting news? (I need to include uue or mime jpeg files).

> Yep. tin/trn/slrn - you name it. BUT there are non-binary groups.
>Any binary posting there is subject for cancel, no matter how it was
>posted. Instead of posting binary (outside of alt.binaries.*, that is) put
>it on FTP or webpage and post URL. BTW, alt.binaries.* are not carried by
>many sites because of the space problems (sometime ago full USENET feed
>was about 15G per day. alt.binaries constituted 50% of it. Other alt.*
>gave 25%. Non-alt groups - the rest).

You probably don't have a Linux problem. Newsfeeds are pretty
unreliable these days, even places that have the disk space to hold
the newsfeed for more than a few days. Several potential problems:

1) Your ISP's outgoing news server is flaky
2) You've managed to trigger your ISP's spam filter
3) You've managed to draw third-party cancels by posting binaries to
non-binary groups
4) You've managed to draw third-party cancels by excessive
cross-posting

Number 1 is the source of most people's newsgroup problems. Ask your
ISP about No. 2, and read a bit in news.announce.net-abuse.usenet
about Nos. 3 & 4.

Anthony Argyriou
http://www.alphageo.com/rose

still trying to get Linux to recognize and use my WinModem (partway
there - it may not be impossible!)

by **Anthony Argyri** » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00

Quote:>> many sites because of the space problems (sometime ago full USENET feed
>> was about 15G per day. alt.binaries constituted 50% of it. Other alt.*
>> gave 25%. Non-alt groups - the rest).

>It sounds unlikely that this is still the case. Some warez groups and
>picture newsgroups post over 500 Megs/day on their own.

Lots of the pictures are heavily crossposted, so 500MB on 30 groups
may only really be 1GB on the total feed.

Also, the cancel moratorium dropped traffic volumes substantially.

Anthony Argyriou

http://www.alphageo.com

by Ia » Sat, 06 Jun 1998 04:00:00

Quote:> Also, the cancel moratorium dropped traffic volumes substantially.

And caused a problem itself! In the INN FAQ, it states that if the
server is spending most of its time doing I/O, a primary culprit is
the control.cancel group as there are tens of thousands of articles in
this group per day, the largest by far. I recently rm *'d the group
from our server (I typed ls in the directory, it hadn't come back with
the results after half an hour, so I killed it!) as the machine was
spending 80% of its time in I/O wait. This is because unix slows down
a lot when accessing a directory with a lot of files in it as it walks
the massive directory tree.

The rm * took over 15 hours to complete. I/O wait went down to 2%. No
wonder expires were taking more than 24 hours to complete!

All sorted now thankfully.

--
Ian - Edit address before mailing. | Have you got a question you want to ask
Running Linux in the UK. | Usenet? Search www.dejanews.com first!
-- There are no facts, only opinions --

Very Computer

posting to newsgroups

posting to newsgroups

posting to newsgroups

posting to newsgroups

posting to newsgroups

posting to newsgroups

posting to newsgroups

posting to newsgroups

posting to newsgroups