Re: Can't see Plow's messages

"Meat Plow" <meat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:pan.2007.04.28.02.52.18.454719@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It's only an issue with fudge packer because he likea to argue and also
in this case save face.

BWWHAHAHAHAHAHA! I made you mad!

My explanation to Dee was about his NTP and the
probability that they run INN on a unix platform like many real NNTP do.

huh?

The reason he is not seeing your posts & getting "message not available"
errors from his usenet server, and seeing only headers no message body
is due to your specifying 'X-No-Archive: Yes"
within the header of your every usenet post. In that case, your posts will
automatically expire from the server's archive & are deleted after 6 days.

Simple.

Why you won't just own up to that in all honesty, instead of continuing to
further affront & berate me in some cheap, desperate spin attempt is
anyone's guess.

Others have posted here they have the same problem with your posts on
Google Groups & receiving messages like:
"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message
will be removed from Groups in 4 days (May 2, 9:00 am)."

This is due to your specifying 'X-No-Archive: Yes" within the header of your
every usenet post. Be in Google Groups, *or their ISP's usenet server*/etc., the
'X-No-Archive: Yes"
message header is universal. All posts with this header expire and are deleted
from the archive spool after 6 days.

Obviously Dee's server recognizes the 'X-NO' protocol and sets posts
{such as yours, with 'X-No-Archive: Yes" within the headers..} to not
archive your messages and automatically delete after 6 days. That is
why he sees "message not available". That is why only header show
& no content. This protocol functions the same on ANY usenet server
configured to recognize the command:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive

It never had anything to do with Google other than me explaining that
Google doesn't have any influence on article propagation.

They do when you specify 'X-No-Archive:Yes' in your message headers.
Standard RFC protocol for ''X-No-Archive:Yes' specified-posts is to
delete from the archive after 6 days. Google is no exception.

'X-No-Archive:Yes' is a newsgroup message header used to prevent a Usenet
message from being archived in ANY any network server configured to recognize
the command. Including -but not limited to- 'Google Groups.'..

ANY any usenet server configured to recognize the 'X-No-Archive:Yes' command
will respond the same procedure since it is standard RFC message header protocol.

ANY usenet server {including 'Google Groups} configured to recognize the command
will allow messages with the header to be archived and made available for view for
a period of six days; after six days, the message will be deleted from the archive.
This is widespread, universal RFC message header protocol. not some obscure policy
unique to only Google Groups.

Hopefully that's clear to you.

It's obvious I
know a great deal about a real NTP connection and process works.

'Obvious' ? lol To whom exactly? coulda' fooled me.

Nothing like baseless self flagellation. Just because you quote a few lines out of a Linux
for Dummies handbook on 'header reference from an NNTP server's overview file'
doesn't qualify as knowing a great deal by any stretch of the imagination.
That's a typical politician-type copout response when they're backed into a corner
{in addition to namecalling & slandering their opponent} "It's obvious I know a great
deal about the Medicare policy and how funding works' "the other guy, well,
he's a dumbass who doesn't know his head from a toaster" "next question"
....

I'm a consultant for netbasix and insurgent.

A true professional, class act. as you've demonstrated in your 'responses' to me...

You explode in fits of hissy-rage, berate & call them names when they ask questions
of you too? LOL I can just picture it. :D

I've installed INN on linux and
sucked a feed from a friend's server here at home to familiarize myself
with the process just for cases like this where I get some dumb fucking
*** who thinks he knows something when in fact all he's done is read the
FAQ for Google.

'Only a dumb fucking *** would install INN on linux and suck a feed from a
friend's server at home to familiarize himself with the process.'

I really don't have to lie about it nor do I have to play a straw man act
like fudge packer does. I've ignored fudge packer's posts in the past
after reading the *** he posts, don't know why I started reading them
again because he's on the same lever as Romeo and Wero.

Same 'lever' ? LOL!

Not saying much, are you. with the company you keep..

Sucks for you to be called out, huh? & all you can muster in response is cursing &
slander, continue to call me childish names and accuse me of 'playing a strawman
act" in your smear campaign. As well as self-flagellate your assumed 'consultant'
credentials' all in complete avoidance of truthfully responding to the question. It's
obvious you've learned well from your friends Romeo & Keith. You've also really
gone downhill ever since your buddy Keith Adams befriended you! in one of his
crazed venom-laden curse fests with your name on it to boot. Must be tough when
your only saving grace is to swear and spew like RR & Keith & further spin the issue
with vague, personal insults.

A true, knowledgeable network consultant worth his salt would never stoop that low.


.

Loading