Is it just me, or have other Blocknews customers noticed
response to NNTP packets by the Blocknees server(s) has
been sporadically delayed during the past few weeks?

Mike Duffy wrote:

> Is it just me, or have other Blocknews customers noticed
> response to NNTP packets by the Blocknees server(s) has
> been sporadically delayed during the past few weeks?

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change..."

- James 1:17 ESV

O:-D

--
GM

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:24:30 +0000
gregorymorrow@msn.com (GM) wrote:

> Mike Duffy wrote:
>
> > Is it just me, or have other Blocknews customers noticed
> > response to NNTP packets by the Blocknees server(s) has
> > been sporadically delayed during the past few weeks?
>
>
>
>
> "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down
> from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow
> due to change..."
>
> - James 1:17 ESV
>
>
> O:-D
>

That is a very balanced and illuminating share, thx.

+1

On 4/19/2024 12:59 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> Is it just me, or have other Blocknews customers noticed
> response to NNTP packets by the Blocknees server(s) has
> been sporadically delayed during the past few weeks?
>

Has been good here recently, but a short time back it was sporadic. It
was about the time Google dropped the groups so they may have been a bit
overwhelmed.

Ed P wrote:
> On 4/19/2024 12:59 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>> Is it just me, or have other Blocknews customers noticed
>> response to NNTP packets by the Blocknees server(s) has
>> been sporadically delayed during the past few weeks?
>>
>
>
> Has been good here recently, but a short time back it was sporadic.  It
> was about the time Google dropped the groups so they may have been a bit
> overwhelmed.
>
>
Blocknews was originally around for large binary file exchange
<bunnies>, I doubt they expected such an influx of text customers at
once. Then GG went tits up, along with Utopia.

They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
the text froups if they wanted to.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:04:01 -0400
Ed P <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

> It was about the time Google dropped the groups

Skynet *never* forgets!

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400
Chris_P_Bacon <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:

> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
> the text froups if they wanted to.

Yet they do not, telling...

On 19 Apr 2024 16:59:33 GMT, Mike Duffy <mxduffy@bell.net> wrote:

>Is it just me, or have other Blocknews customers noticed
>response to NNTP packets by the Blocknees server(s) has
>been sporadically delayed during the past few weeks?

Stop showing off and repeat the question in normal language, otherwise
most of RFC has no idea what you're on about.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
<crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:

>Ed P wrote:
>> On 4/19/2024 12:59 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>>> Is it just me, or have other Blocknews customers noticed
>>> response to NNTP packets by the Blocknees server(s) has
>>> been sporadically delayed during the past few weeks?
>>
>> Has been good here recently, but a short time back it was sporadic.  It
>> was about the time Google dropped the groups so they may have been a bit
>> overwhelmed.
> >
>Blocknews was originally around for large binary file exchange
><bunnies>, I doubt they expected such an influx of text customers at
>once. Then GG went tits up, along with Utopia.
>
>They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
>the text froups if they wanted to.

For RFC, I once used one of these Usenet providers that mainly aim at
binaries. The problem was that it didn't update with new messages in
real time. I'd see a bunch of new messages once every 30 or 40
minutes. That doesn't always matter, but can be irritating.

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 05:10:27 +1000
Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> The problem was that it didn't update with new messages in
> real time.

Musta been a dog then, you need e-s!

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 05:10:27 +1000
Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> That doesn't always matter, but can be irritating.

Quenie retired to the Tabby Rooom, lol!

https://www.dataw.com/dining

For larger gatherings, reserve one of our many special events venues, including the Tabby Room, Carolina Ballroom, Gazebo, or Community Center.

my foolish hammer-drill wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400
> Chris_P_Bacon <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>
>> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
>> the text froups if they wanted to.
>
> Yet they do not, telling...
>
>
Usenet was never intended to be an instant chat room. Blocknews
has very good retention, which is what is designed for.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:14:48 -0400
Chris_P_Bacon <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:

> my foolish hammer-drill wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400
> > Chris_P_Bacon <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
> >
> >> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response
> >> in the text froups if they wanted to.
> >
> > Yet they do not, telling...
> >
> >
> Usenet was never intended to be an instant chat room. Blocknews
> has very good retention, which is what is designed for.

Squirtman referral block expiring soon?

Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>
>> Ed P wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2024 12:59 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>>>> Is it just me, or have other Blocknews customers noticed
>>>> response to NNTP packets by the Blocknees server(s) has
>>>> been sporadically delayed during the past few weeks?
>>>
>>> Has been good here recently, but a short time back it was sporadic.  It
>>> was about the time Google dropped the groups so they may have been a bit
>>> overwhelmed.
>>>
>> Blocknews was originally around for large binary file exchange
>> <bunnies>, I doubt they expected such an influx of text customers at
>> once. Then GG went tits up, along with Utopia.
>>
>> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
>> the text froups if they wanted to.
>
> For RFC, I once used one of these Usenet providers that mainly aim at
> binaries. The problem was that it didn't update with new messages in
> real time. I'd see a bunch of new messages once every 30 or 40
> minutes. That doesn't always matter, but can be irritating.
>
>
Right, that's fairly common with a server intended for that, but
they will have entire movies, porn, music libraries on the spool.

It's a way to bootleg things, for the most part. No one calls
it ethical.

my foolish hammer-drill wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 05:10:27 +1000
> Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The problem was that it didn't update with new messages in
>> real time.
>
> Musta been a dog then, you need e-s!
>
>
Yes, no binaries on Ray's server.

my foolish hammer-drill wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:14:48 -0400
> Chris_P_Bacon <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>
>> my foolish hammer-drill wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400
>>> Chris_P_Bacon <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response
>>>> in the text froups if they wanted to.
>>>
>>> Yet they do not, telling...
>>>
>> >
>> Usenet was never intended to be an instant chat room. Blocknews
>> has very good retention, which is what is designed for.
>
> Squirtman referral block expiring soon?
>
>
Squirtman referral? You lost me there.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:14:48 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
<crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:

>my foolish hammer-drill wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400
>> Chris_P_Bacon <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>
>>> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
>>> the text froups if they wanted to.
>>
>> Yet they do not, telling...
>>
>Usenet was never intended to be an instant chat room.

It wasn't originally intended for file sharing either. Anyway, it
failed where all the others don't fail, so I stopped using it, except
for one binary per year or so.

> Blocknews has very good retention, which is what is designed for.

I wasn't talking about Blocknews. I believe it was NewsgroupDirect.
And it may have been fixed. It was years ago.

Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:14:48 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>
>> my foolish hammer-drill wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400
>>> Chris_P_Bacon <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
>>>> the text froups if they wanted to.
>>>
>>> Yet they do not, telling...
>>>
>> Usenet was never intended to be an instant chat room.
>
> It wasn't originally intended for file sharing either. Anyway, it
> failed where all the others don't fail, so I stopped using it, except
> for one binary per year or so.
>
>> Blocknews has very good retention, which is what is designed for.
>
> I wasn't talking about Blocknews.
>
Well the subject is Blocknews.
>
> I believe it was NewsgroupDirect.
> And it may have been fixed. It was years ago.
>
>
Don't know anything about them but if it's bunny server
you can expect some of that delay thing. <shrug>

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:18:03 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
<crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
>> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>
>>> Ed P wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2024 12:59 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>>>>> Is it just me, or have other Blocknews customers noticed
>>>>> response to NNTP packets by the Blocknees server(s) has
>>>>> been sporadically delayed during the past few weeks?
>>>>
>>>> Has been good here recently, but a short time back it was sporadic.  It
>>>> was about the time Google dropped the groups so they may have been a bit
>>>> overwhelmed.
>>>>
>>> Blocknews was originally around for large binary file exchange
>>> <bunnies>, I doubt they expected such an influx of text customers at
>>> once. Then GG went tits up, along with Utopia.
>>>
>>> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
>>> the text froups if they wanted to.
>>
>> For RFC, I once used one of these Usenet providers that mainly aim at
>> binaries. The problem was that it didn't update with new messages in
>> real time. I'd see a bunch of new messages once every 30 or 40
>> minutes. That doesn't always matter, but can be irritating.
>>
> >
>Right, that's fairly common with a server intended for that

Which is why I went somewhere else for text newsgroups.

>, but they will have entire movies, porn, music libraries on the spool.
>
>It's a way to bootleg things, for the most part. No one calls
>it ethical.

I think torrents are the way to go these days. Also, there are lots of
legal providers of streaming movies and TV shows, such as Tubitv.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:29:41 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
<crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:14:48 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
>> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>
>>> my foolish hammer-drill wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400
>>>> Chris_P_Bacon <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
>>>>> the text froups if they wanted to.
>>>>
>>>> Yet they do not, telling...
>>>>
>>> Usenet was never intended to be an instant chat room.
>>
>> It wasn't originally intended for file sharing either. Anyway, it
>> failed where all the others don't fail, so I stopped using it, except
>> for one binary per year or so.
>>
>>> Blocknews has very good retention, which is what is designed for.
>>
>> I wasn't talking about Blocknews.
> >
>Well the subject is Blocknews.

lol, are you autistic?

Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:18:03 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
>>> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed P wrote:
>>>>> On 4/19/2024 12:59 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>>>>>> Is it just me, or have other Blocknews customers noticed
>>>>>> response to NNTP packets by the Blocknees server(s) has
>>>>>> been sporadically delayed during the past few weeks?
>>>>>
>>>>> Has been good here recently, but a short time back it was sporadic.  It
>>>>> was about the time Google dropped the groups so they may have been a bit
>>>>> overwhelmed.
>>>>>
>>>> Blocknews was originally around for large binary file exchange
>>>> <bunnies>, I doubt they expected such an influx of text customers at
>>>> once. Then GG went tits up, along with Utopia.
>>>>
>>>> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
>>>> the text froups if they wanted to.
>>>
>>> For RFC, I once used one of these Usenet providers that mainly aim at
>>> binaries. The problem was that it didn't update with new messages in
>>> real time. I'd see a bunch of new messages once every 30 or 40
>>> minutes. That doesn't always matter, but can be irritating.
>>>
>>>
>> Right, that's fairly common with a server intended for that
>
> Which is why I went somewhere else for text newsgroups.
>
>> , but they will have entire movies, porn, music libraries on the spool.
>>
>> It's a way to bootleg things, for the most part. No one calls
>> it ethical.
>
> I think torrents are the way to go these days.
>
That's another version of Usenet bunnies, still stealing.
>
> Also, there are lots of
> legal providers of streaming movies and TV shows, such as Tubitv.
>
>
Yes, pay services for the most part, not bootleg.

Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:29:41 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:14:48 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
>>> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>>
>>>> my foolish hammer-drill wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400
>>>>> Chris_P_Bacon <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
>>>>>> the text froups if they wanted to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet they do not, telling...
>>>>>
>>>> Usenet was never intended to be an instant chat room.
>>>
>>> It wasn't originally intended for file sharing either. Anyway, it
>>> failed where all the others don't fail, so I stopped using it, except
>>> for one binary per year or so.
>>>
>>>> Blocknews has very good retention, which is what is designed for.
>>>
>>> I wasn't talking about Blocknews.
>>>
>> Well the subject is Blocknews.
>
> lol, are you autistic?
>
>
Why do you say that? Read the subject header, dimmy.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:41:14 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
<crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:18:03 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
>> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
>>>> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ed P wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/2024 12:59 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
>>>>>>> Is it just me, or have other Blocknews customers noticed
>>>>>>> response to NNTP packets by the Blocknees server(s) has
>>>>>>> been sporadically delayed during the past few weeks?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has been good here recently, but a short time back it was sporadic.  It
>>>>>> was about the time Google dropped the groups so they may have been a bit
>>>>>> overwhelmed.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Blocknews was originally around for large binary file exchange
>>>>> <bunnies>, I doubt they expected such an influx of text customers at
>>>>> once. Then GG went tits up, along with Utopia.
>>>>>
>>>>> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
>>>>> the text froups if they wanted to.
>>>>
>>>> For RFC, I once used one of these Usenet providers that mainly aim at
>>>> binaries. The problem was that it didn't update with new messages in
>>>> real time. I'd see a bunch of new messages once every 30 or 40
>>>> minutes. That doesn't always matter, but can be irritating.
>>>>
>>> Right, that's fairly common with a server intended for that
>>
>> Which is why I went somewhere else for text newsgroups.
>>
>>> , but they will have entire movies, porn, music libraries on the spool.
>>>
>>> It's a way to bootleg things, for the most part. No one calls
>>> it ethical.
>>
>> I think torrents are the way to go these days.
> >
>That's another version of Usenet bunnies, still stealing.

Ah, you're changing the topic. Enjoy!

>> Also, there are lots of
>> legal providers of streaming movies and TV shows, such as Tubitv.
>>
>Yes, pay services for the most part, not bootleg.

Tubitv and many others are free. You just have to pretend you're
American, so I put on my dumb Trump voter face.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:42:16 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
<crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:29:41 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
>> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:14:48 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
>>>> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> my foolish hammer-drill wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:19:00 -0400
>>>>>> Chris_P_Bacon <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They could adjust their spools to be an instant chat room response in
>>>>>>> the text froups if they wanted to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet they do not, telling...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Usenet was never intended to be an instant chat room.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't originally intended for file sharing either. Anyway, it
>>>> failed where all the others don't fail, so I stopped using it, except
>>>> for one binary per year or so.
>>>>
>>>>> Blocknews has very good retention, which is what is designed for.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't talking about Blocknews.
>>>>
>>> Well the subject is Blocknews.
>>
>> lol, are you autistic?
>>
> >
>Why do you say that? Read the subject header, dimmy.

Yup, autistic.

Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:41:14 -0400, Chris_P_Bacon
> <crsp.p.bacon1@none.none> wrote:
>>> I think torrents are the way to go these days.
>>>
>> That's another version of Usenet bunnies, still stealing.
>
> Ah, you're changing the topic. Enjoy!
>
>
No, but the truth seems to confuse you. Torrents *are* bootleg stealing
for the most part, but keep on telling yourself they're not.
>
>
>>> Also, there are lots of
>>> legal providers of streaming movies and TV shows, such as Tubitv.
>>>
>> Yes, pay services for the most part, not bootleg.
>
> Tubitv and many others are free. You just have to pretend you're
> American, so I put on my dumb Trump voter face.
>
>
Your only purpose here is to show how much Americans and Trump
get under your skin, enjoy.