Cross-Posting (X-Posting) Preferable to Multi-Posting? - Re: An admission that CIA torture flights have landed at British airports

"Mike Clayton" <news2005d.10.mikelclayton@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message 8pyNYjWNOBoDFwi$@ntlworld.com">news:8pyNYjWNOBoDFwi$@ntlworld.com...
> In message <n1gup1tg0tgjmq72vao0f854dfh4o4sb75@xxxxxxx>,
> Allen <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why have you multi posted this to a number of groups?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I subscribe to a number of different groups would you
>>>>> believe?
>>>>
>>>> Then crosspost it, don't multipost it. It's a simple law of Usenet.

Well, there are no actual *laws* in Usenet, are there?
But there definitely *are* Conventions & accepted/recommended
practices...
& yes, if there is a legitimate reason for Posting to more than one
group, then it should be X-Posted, rather than Multi-Posted.

>>> The trouble is, Allen (if that is really your name) is that when
>>> you x-post and one of the groups happens to be infested with trolls
>>> you find that brainless trolls follow you into the other groups
>>> to try and cause trouble.
>>
>> That's not my problem.

& in Usenet it's down to the people *reading* the Newsgroups,
to take the appropriate measures, so as to decide what they do & don't
want to read, using whatever facilities they have available in their
NewsReader, isn't it?

& most of those facilities are usually thwarted, if a Message
is Multi-Posted (as opposed to being Cross-Posted)

When a Message is Cross-Posted, the whole point of that is that it will
have the same Message-ID in whatever Newsgroup it appears in & can thus
be Marked as Read (&/or Deleted) just once, rather than people having
to Read it & mark it in each & every Groups that it is Posted to

> The other reason I, and many others do not x-post is that someone
> may innocently respond in this group for example, not realise that
> the article is x-posted, and then find that they become between part
> of a 'war' It has happened before.

Well, it's really up to the people Replying to check (& decide) what
Groups their replies go to, isn't it?

I don't think (& neither do the normally accepted procedures of Usenet)
that it is up to the *Sender* of a Post to try & dictate in that way
what people should do?

>>> Anyway, despite your efforts to stifle discussions I will continue
>>> to post to the groups I have an interest in the way that I see fit

Yes, by all means please do!!!
but if you want to Post the same (or essentially the same) Message to
more than one Newsgroup, then it should be *Cross*-Posted, rather than
being Multi-Posted.

>> Continue to post individual articles to lots of newsgroups and you
>> won't be able to post in the way you see fit for very long. There's
>> lots of netcops out there.
>
> I ask you again to cite the *rule* that states articles must be
> x-posted instead of multi-posted.

There are no actual *Rules* in Usenet - only accepted practice
& recommendations.

But if you want some references as to what those sort of Recommendations
are, then have a look at some of these...

Even Google Groups have some Guidelines about how to Post to Usenet!
:-)

Only post a message once.
http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/posting_style.html#once

<quote>
Only post a message once.
Avoid posting messages to more than one newsgroup unless you are sure
it is appropriate. If you do post to multiple newsgroups, do not post
to each group separately. Instead, specify all the groups on a single
copy of the message. This reduces network overhead and lets people who
subscribe to more than one of those groups see the message once instead
of having to wade through each copy.
</quote>

Avoid posting to multiple newsgroups.
http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/posting_style.html#avoid

<quote>
Avoid posting to multiple newsgroups.
Few things annoy Usenet readers as much as multiple copies of a
posting appearing in multiple newsgroups (called "spamming"). A posting
that is cross-posted (i.e. lists multiple newsgroups on the Newsgroups:
header line) to a few appropriate newsgroups is fine, but even with
cross-posts, restraint is advised.
</quote>

>... I would also point out that the article in question was short
> and only posted to three groups. Hardly a massive waste of bandwidth.

Maybe not, but it should still be Cross-Posted (& not Multi-Posted)

> So, post the *rule* that I am breaking.

There aren't any (legally enforceable) "Rules" on Usenet - but there
are plenty of accepted & recommended practices, which most people
prefer to stick with - for the benefit of others...

Here's prolly the most definitive (& widely accepted) References,
on the FAQS.org Site....

Rules for posting to Usenet
http://faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/
<quote>
Usually, it is sufficient to post any article to a single newsgroup;
the one that's most relevant to the subject of your article. If the
article is really relevant to multiple newsgroups, then "cross-post"
to the relevant newsgroups by posting the article only once with all
newsgroups named on the "Newsgroups" header line.
<snip>
By posting a single article to all the newsgroups you wish to reach,
the news software is able to transfer a single copy. Furthermore,
users with "smart" newsreaders will see the article only once. Making
separate postings of your article for each newsgroup you wish to reach
tends to annoy readers rather than emphasize the message content as
well as waste computational resources.
</quote>

FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines
http://faqs.org/faqs/usenet/spam-faq/

<quote>
Some people think cross-posting is "bad". In and of itself, it's
good behaviour - it allows you to reach more groups with less impact
on the net.
Especially if you set the Followup-to: header to one group.
</quote>

& the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) Usefor Articles
are another source of Reference, (& the nearest thing to some kind
of coherent "Rules" for Usenet) where they have a Mailing List of
various people who are trying to get lost of Recommendations listed...

http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mailbox/usenet-format.200312

OK, that's a very long Page, (all in Plain Text, no nice HyperLinked
Index!) containing a Draft Discussion - but do a "Find Text" on that
Page for the word "cross" & you will find plenty of References to why
Cross-Posting is preferable to Multi-Posting.

& here's the latest IETF Usefor Draft (Dated March 2005)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt

Look at Page 25 of that in the "Usenet Best Practice" bit, about
2/3 of the way down the Article...

Section 3.5 - User Interfaces

<quote>
The user is responsible for providing at least the Newsgroups and
Subject headers of the new article; in the case of Followups and
Replies, it is usual for the user agent to provide defaults for
these, but in all cases facilities for the user to edit these MUST
be provided. In particular, it MUST be possible to specify multiple
Newsgroups (the effect of which MUST be for them to be cross-posted
rather than multi-posted), but the poster SHOULD be prevented (or at
least warned) from excessive crossposting and SHOULD be offered the
opportunity to set a Followup-To header if he insists on an excessive
cross-post.
</quote>

& have a look at the GNKSA 2.0 (Good Net-Keeping Seal of Approval)
Pages...

http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/usenet/software/good-netkeeping-seal.html

<quote>
These are the proposed standards a Usenet news program should meet
to deserve the "Good Net-Keeping Seal":

3) Provide cross-posting functionality

When creating either a new article or a followup, the user MUST be
allowed to specify multiple newsgroups, and the software MUST cross-post
(not multi-post) to them if more than one is specified.

Posting software SHOULD prevent the user from excessive cross-posting,
or at least warn against it. If posting to a very large number of
groups, the user SHOULD either be forced or strongly suggested to set a
"Followup-To" header. Such a header must be subjected to restrictions
that are at least as strict as those imposed on "Newsgroups: ".

Rationale: Cross-posting is an essential feature of Usenet. If the
software cannot cross-post, then its users will multi-post instead. A
reasonable attempt should be made, however, to protect the user against
(usually inadvertent; if not, often considered net-abuse) excessive
cross-postings that will only lead to cancelling and flame warfare.
</quote>

& here are some more Articles from various Web Sites, which explain
about it...

FAQ: Advice about crossposting
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/crospost.html

<quote>
There is one very important DON'T in cross-posting. Do not send
the same message separately to different newsgroups, i.e. do not
multi-post. If your posting indeed is necessary and relevant in more
than one newsgroup, always use the cross-posting facility of the news
(Newsgroups:). If you repeat a message separately in different
newsgroups, the readers will have to see your posting many times over,
and will get annoyed.
</quote>

The seven don'ts of Usenet
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/dont.html

<quote>
Just avoid the seven most common and most harmful mistakes when
posting to Usenet. This concise netiquette tells what they are. Note
that many experienced users skip messages if it contains these mistakes;
so avoid them, if you wish to have chances of getting advice from just
those people who could help you.
<snip>
6. Select an appropriate group, and don't post your question to
more than one group (at least if you don't know how to crosspost).
And don't reply to an article without looking at the list of groups
to which your article would be sent.
</quote>

NewsReaders.com: Getting Started: Netiquette
http://newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html

<quote>
If a message truly belongs in multiple groups, by all means cross-post.
In fact it is better to cross-post than to post the same message
separately to different groups.
</quote>

The Net Abuse FAQ
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#2.3

<quote>
2.3) What about cross-posting?
Here's the difference between cross-posting and multi-posting:
cross-posting is where you list all the groups on the Newsgroups:
line of a single post. Multi-posting is where you have some idiotic
program fire an individual copy of the post to each group. (If you do
it manually, that's even more idiotic.)
</quote>

How can I post a message to more than one Usenet newsgroup?
http://kb.iu.edu/data/affn.html?cust=12244

<quote>
If you'd like to send your post to a very small number of newsgroups
that are related to the subject at hand, you can add the newsgroups
to the "Newsgroups:" line in the header, like this:
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.usenet-kooks
This is called cross-posting.
</quote>

Cross-Posting and Multi-Posting
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm#XPMP

<quote>
Usually, it is only necessary to put an article in a single newsgroup.

However, if more need to be used, do cross-post a single copy correctly

by listing all of the relevant groups together, comma-separated,

in the header of a single posting; any follow-up will then normally

appear in all those groups. Do not multi-post duplicates of the same

article repeatedly to different relevant groups, since that wastes

everybody's resources - and temper.

</quote>

Etc, etc...

>>> Due to the abuse of the ability to x-post many people condemn
>>> the practice.
>>
>> That's not my problem.

& many more will point out why Cross-Posting any Message that has
a legitimate reason for being Posted to more than one Group is
preferable to Multi-Posting.

> There is a lot that is not your problem. It didn't stop you jumping
> in with your own rules did it?

They aren't "his" Rules at all.

> Perhaps you are fairly new to the Net?

Maybe, maybe not, but the fact remains that the accepted convention
(& the recommendation) is to Cross-Post, rather than Multi-Post any
Message that has a legitimate reason for being Posted to more than
one News Group.

Oh!
I just came across this next one as well...
Yes, of course many (most? all?) ISPs have an "AUP" - Acceptable Use
Policy, don't they?
& they normally mention something about how to Post to their Usenet
Servers?

Here's one from Metronet.co.uk (which incidentally has recently been
bought up by PlusNet)...

http://metronet.co.uk/policies/aup.shtml
4 Usenet
4.1 Usenet Spam
4.1.1 Definitions

<quote>
Cross-Posting
Cross-posting is posting a single Usenet message which is marked
as appearing in multiple newsgroups.

Multi-Posting
Multi-posting is repeatedly posting identical or substantively
similar messages. Multi-posting is considered bad because each copy
of a multi-posting must be separately distributed across Usenet,
whereas a cross-posted message need only be transferred once (even
though it appears in multiple newsgroups).

Briedbart Index
In order to quantify how bad a multi-posted or cross-posted message
is, the Briedbart index is used.
If during any 45 day period, a series of substantively similar
messages are posted, the first cross-posted to n1 groups, the second
to n2 groups, the third to n3 groups, etc., The Briedbart index of
that series of postings is calculated as the sum of the square roots
of n1, n2, n3 etc.

Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP)
Any series of substantively similar postings with a Briedbart index
greater than 20 constitute an Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP).

4.1.2 Prohibition of EMP
Under no circumstances may MetroNet's systems be used to Excessively
Multi-Post.
</quote>

& no doubt Plusnet have similar Sections in their AUP Pages?

Yep...
:-)

Netiquette
http://www.plus.net/support/email/email_tools/netiquette.shtml
Summary:
We've reproduced this article from Delaware Tech on Netiquette, an
important factor to consider when communicating via email, news, etc...


3.1.3 NetNews Guidelines
http://www.plus.net/support/email/email_tools/netiquette.shtml#8

<quote>
If you feel an article will be of interest to more than one Newsgroup,
be sure to CROSSPOST the article rather than individually post it to
those groups. In general, probably only five-to-six groups will have
similar enough interests to warrant this.
</quote>

PLusNet Acceptable Use Policy
http://www.plus.net/info2/legal/#aup

HTH

:-)

--
pmj


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Noobie question: Am I on the right track?
    ... more newsgroups or listservs. ... Cross-posting to even two groups ... You are insistent on ... promotion of cross posting over multi-posting, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsmedia.server)
  • Re: finding last empty cell and filling data to the left
    ... here you are multi-posting your current question. ... how to do cross-posting, and the explanation of why it is the better way to go, is included inside of it... ... Replies made in one group will not be visible in the other groups, which may cause multiple people to respond to your question with the same answer because they didn't know someone else had already done it. ... If you MUST post your message to multiple groups, post a single message and select all the groups (or type their names manually in the Newsgroups field, separated by commas) in which you want it to be seen. ...
    (microsoft.public.excel)
  • Re: hiding rows in a table
    ... >I don't agree that multiple servers qualifies as cross-posting anyway. ... >you mean multi-posting as I see that gets the most ire directed towards it? ... Newsgroups: ... practice, being inefficient use of Net & human resources. ...
    (microsoft.public.scripting.jscript)
  • Re: CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?
    ... Multi-posting is inherently an abuse itself, ... Cross-posting to a small selection of related ... newsgroups is acceptable for such topics. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Windows Updates Drivers
    ... Are you sure you shouldn't crosspost to the other half ... > of usenet?!? ... There is nothing wrong with cross-posting, if there was, then MS would not ... And 4 newsgroups isn't even half of MS's XP newgroups, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)