On 26 Mar 2023 at 08:23:19 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> X-posts eliminated

I wish you would'nt do that! It means stuff gets through my filters that would
otherwise be suppressed.

J.

--
Mony a mickle makes a muckle.

On 28/03/2023 09:42, John Hill wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2023 at 08:23:19 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> X-posts eliminated
>
> I wish you would'nt do that! It means stuff gets through my filters that would
> otherwise be suppressed.

What, exactly, are you trying to 'filter', John?

On 28 Mar 2023 at 09:53:02 BST, "David Brooks" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:

> On 28/03/2023 09:42, John Hill wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 2023 at 08:23:19 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> X-posts eliminated
>>
>> I wish you would'nt do that! It means stuff gets through my filters that would
>> otherwise be suppressed.
>
> What, exactly, are you trying to 'filter', John?

If I said that publicly, people (trolls especially) might figure out how to
defeat the filters!

At least Joerg is only doing it inadvertently - though why, I can't imagine.

Unfortunately Usenapp can't filter on body content. Unlike MacSOUP, which
worked differently.

John.
--
An infinitely complex system can fail in an infinite number of ways.

Am 28.03.23 um 10:42 schrieb John Hill:
> On 26 Mar 2023 at 08:23:19 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> X-posts eliminated
>
> I wish you would'nt do that! It means stuff gets through my filters that would
> otherwise be suppressed.

What does that tell you?
I have absolutely no intention to allow X-posting into groups I do not read.

Adjust your filters. Just suppressing postings that are crossposted into
another specific group is too simple.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 28.03.23 um 10:53 schrieb David Brooks:
> On 28/03/2023 09:42, John Hill wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 2023 at 08:23:19 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> X-posts eliminated
>>
>> I wish you would'nt do that! It means stuff gets through my filters that would
>> otherwise be suppressed.
>
> What, exactly, are you trying to 'filter', John?

I guess your and clumsy militaristic Kinsey's spam to
alt.computer.workshop. My 5 cts.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 28.03.23 um 11:09 schrieb John Hill:
> Unfortunately Usenapp can't filter on body content. Unlike MacSOUP, which
> worked differently.

McSoup is a dinosaur from times when postings were downloaded in batches
which made filtering on the body possible. Modern Usenet-clients work
differently which makes filtering on bodies impossible.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

David Brooks laid this down on his screen :
> On 28/03/2023 02:58, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> I thought that his statement indicated a misunderstanding on his part, and
>> I still do.
>
> Please point to the item which you /think/ I misunderstood.

That there is NO equivalent to BIOS settings on a Mac.

PC manufacturers generally called their basic input/output system BIOS
but by any other name such as UEFI they still perform the same basic
functions.

The term 'Settings' and that the storage is RAM as opposed to ROM or
EEPROM implies that the stored information can be easily altered by the
user or the system once running.

I think that you are thinking that internal off-disk data storage areas
are dangerous (malware?) or perhaps just used for "your trial version
has expired" sort of supercookie persistence function that you wish to
defeat.

CMOS is the type of circuit design and manufacturing process used for
these things because it consumes very little power and the 'keep alive'
voltage (whether it gets called a CMOS capacitor or battery makes no
difference) will last longer. Even if this stuff is all VLSI and
onboard the main processor chip, it still performs the same function.

On 28/03/2023 10:09, John Hill wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2023 at 09:53:02 BST, "David Brooks" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 28/03/2023 09:42, John Hill wrote:
>>> On 26 Mar 2023 at 08:23:19 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> X-posts eliminated
>>>
>>> I wish you would'nt do that! It means stuff gets through my filters that would
>>> otherwise be suppressed.
>>
>> What, exactly, are you trying to 'filter', John?
>
> If I said that publicly, people (trolls especially) might figure out how to
> defeat the filters!

What is the difference beween YOU and a so-called Troll?

Are you, in some way, more important than other folk who wish to post in
a Usenet group?

(no disrespect intended!)

> At least Joerg is only doing it inadvertently - though why, I can't imagine.

Joerg is FULL of self-importance!

> Unfortunately Usenapp can't filter on body content. Unlike MacSOUP, which
> worked differently.

Thank you for explaining that.

--
David

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 17:06:13 +0100, FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> After serious thinking David Brooks wrote :
>> On 27/03/2023 15:04, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> David Brooks explained on 3/27/2023 :
>>>> On 27/03/2023 12:13, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>> on 3/27/2023, David Brooks supposed :
>>>>>> On 27/03/2023 09:40, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 08:29:00 +0100, David Brooks
>>>>>>> <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 27/03/2023 07:58, James McDougal wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 10:26:34 +0100, ? Mighty Wannabe ✅ <.> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IBM made the OS/2, and within it the "micro-channel" technology in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> motherboard, and vowed to sue any clone maker who dared copy it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What exactly did they threaten to sue about? Copying the hardware
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> the software?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ? :rolls_eyes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sue about copying IBM's proprietary "micro-channel" technology..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_architecture
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So how come everyone wasn't sued? We're all using IBM clones aren't
>>>>>>>>>> we?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The clones did not use Micro Channel. The clones advanced from ISA to
>>>>>>>>> PCI.
>>>>>>>>> Micro Channel had only a small niche market, and PCI won the day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You obviously know about computers! Thank you for your answer. ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you answer the question which I asked previously?
>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <T56RL.1060071$gGD7.255827@fx11.iad>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-detect-and-get-rid-of-malware-which-resides-in-my-computers-firmware-and-internal-electronics
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there REALLY such a thing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've never observed it, it is possible. My BIOS has protection against
>>>>>>> it, so thre must be threats out there. The first answer in Quora is
>>>>>>> correct:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ****
>>>>>>> Removal is the "easier" part: You either flash back original software
>>>>>>> into the firmware, exchange the firmware or you can't.
>>>>>>> Detection:
>>>>>>> 1. Symptoms (it behaves differently from original software)
>>>>>>> 2. Byte by Byte firmware comparison with original one.
>>>>>>> ****
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would simply flash it with the same as already should be on it.. If
>>>>>>> it's a PC motherboard BIOS, this can be done within Windows, you used
>>>>>>> to have to load it on using a USB stick within the BIOS. I assume Macs
>>>>>>> are similar? I've never actually been in a Mac's BIOS settings - can
>>>>>>> you press a key at power on to get to basic settings before the OS like
>>>>>>> on a PC? I know there are some keys which do special things before the
>>>>>>> OS loads when the OS is needing fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I'm aware there is *NO* equivalent to BIOS settings on a Mac.
>>>>>> But I'm willing to learn!
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean CMOS?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.macworld.com/article/224955/how-to-reset-a-macs-nvram-pram-and-smc.html
>>>>
>>>> No, Sir!
>>>>
>>>> I learnt about that within the first two years of owning my /first/ iMac!
>>>> (bought 2009)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks anyway!
>>>
>>> Then what do you mean by "equivalent to BIOS settings" if not storage in
>>> NVRAM?
>>
>>
>> PLease see if there is anything here which will help you:-
>>
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=there+is+*NO*+equivalent+to+BIOS+settings+on+a+Mac.+
>
> https://macpaw.com/how-to/mac-bios-mode
>
> =================> BIOS mode only exists on PCs, right? Well, sort of. Although the Mac
> doesn’t have a bios mode, it has something similar. In this article,
> we’ll get into what BIOS mode is, its equivalent on the Mac, and how to
> enter and use it.
> =================>
> Yep, it helps.

Can't be letting users actually modify their own property can we?

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 16:34:14 +0100, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/26/23 23:25, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> It's also badly done, the boot drive is empty, yet the OS is running?
>
> Why do you assume this is the boot drive. Its labeled "DOCUMENTS" and
> the boot drive is not always C.

The whole thing doesn't make sense. The left dialog box is of system, which appears to contain a computer and a documents folder, but no drives!

The right dialog box is headed "my computer", so it's not looking at just one drive or folder. But it shows a drive C labelled documents which is empty.

> BTW, I once had a Windows installation (I think it was w2k) that booted
> from E.

That far back drive letters meant something. It was ridiculous, you could trash a system by:
Take it's C: drive and physically connect it as a second drive to another computer.
Boot the other computer. Two C drives? Not allowed, the second one would be changed to D automatically.
Return the drive to the original computer. Now it only has a D and can't boot. Almost impossible to fix.

So I've no idea how you could boot from E.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 23:46:56 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/27/2023 11:34 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On 3/26/23 23:25, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> It's also badly done, the boot drive is empty, yet the OS is running?
>>
>> Why do you assume this is the boot drive. Its labeled "DOCUMENTS" and the boot drive is not always C.
>>
>> BTW, I once had a Windows installation (I think it was w2k) that booted from E.
>>
>
> The drive having "0 bytes" used on it, I found that amusing.
>
> It might be able to say "0 bytes" if it was RAW, but
> since the label says FAT32, then immediately the used space
> has to be >0 . RAW partitions say "0 for everything".

NEver noticed that, I just checked a formatted FAT32 USB stick, it says 64KB used. So it's actually counting the file allocation table?

John Hill <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[...]

> Unfortunately Usenapp can't filter on body content.
> Unlike MacSOUP, which worked differently.
I don't think MacSOUP can filter on body content;
if it can, I'd like to know how to do that, please.
--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

<https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 28.03.23 um 11:09 schrieb John Hill:
> > Unfortunately Usenapp can't filter on body content. Unlike MacSOUP, which
> > worked differently.
>
> McSoup is a dinosaur from times when postings were downloaded in batches
> which made filtering on the body possible. Modern Usenet-clients work
> differently which makes filtering on bodies impossible.

I've just seen this, please disregard my adjacent query.

--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

<https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:

> John Hill <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Unfortunately Usenapp can't filter on body content.
> > Unlike MacSOUP, which worked differently.
>
> I don't think MacSOUP can filter on body content;
> if it can, I'd like to know how to do that, please.
>

Answered elsewhere by JL, please disregard.

--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

<https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

Am 28.03.23 um 12:31 schrieb David Brooks:
> On 28/03/2023 10:09, John Hill wrote:
>> At least Joerg is only doing it inadvertently - though why, I can't imagine.
>
> Joerg is FULL of self-importance!

You or others do not determine where my or other people's postings go.
Does that fit into your bird brain?

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 28 Mar 2023 at 11:31:10 BST, "David Brooks" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:

> On 28/03/2023 10:09, John Hill wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 2023 at 09:53:02 BST, "David Brooks" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/03/2023 09:42, John Hill wrote:
>>>> On 26 Mar 2023 at 08:23:19 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> X-posts eliminated
>>>>
>>>> I wish you would'nt do that! It means stuff gets through my filters that would
>>>> otherwise be suppressed.
>>>
>>> What, exactly, are you trying to 'filter', John?
>>
>> If I said that publicly, people (trolls especially) might figure out how to
>> defeat the filters!
>
> What is the difference beween YOU and a so-called Troll?

Basically, nothing.

>
> Are you, in some way, more important than other folk who wish to post in
> a Usenet group?
>
> (no disrespect intended!)

None taken.

>
>> At least Joerg is only doing it inadvertently - though why, I can't imagine.
>
> Joerg is FULL of self-importance!
>
>> Unfortunately Usenapp can't filter on body content. Unlike MacSOUP, which
>> worked differently.
>
> Thank you for explaining that.

I raise the question with Andre, and he explained the reason very clearly.

See also Joerg's post, which is also clear.

It is curious, though, that whole messages were downloaded in the dial-up era
when bandwidth was very limited, whereas now we have broadband only headers
are downloaded. You'd think the trend would be the other way around!

John.
--
Mony a mickle makes a muckle.

Am 29.03.23 um 11:06 schrieb John Hill:
> I raise the question with Andre, and he explained the reason very clearly.
>
> See also Joerg's post, which is also clear.
>
> It is curious, though, that whole messages were downloaded in the dial-up era
> when bandwidth was very limited, whereas now we have broadband only headers
> are downloaded. You'd think the trend would be the other way around!

This is a misunderstanding of the mechanics. To download just the
headers was not an option in modem-times. Each and every time you wanted
to read a message you would have had to redial to get the message.

Nowadays it takes a fraction of a second to get the body of a
Usenet-message when you click on it. Modern clients in most cases master
both processes but the idea is to download only what is nedded (=online
readers).

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 29 Mar 2023 at 10:18:10 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 29.03.23 um 11:06 schrieb John Hill:
>> I raise the question with Andre, and he explained the reason very clearly.
>>
>> See also Joerg's post, which is also clear.
>>
>> It is curious, though, that whole messages were downloaded in the dial-up era
>> when bandwidth was very limited, whereas now we have broadband only headers
>> are downloaded. You'd think the trend would be the other way around!
>
> This is a misunderstanding of the mechanics. To download just the
> headers was not an option in modem-times. Each and every time you wanted
> to read a message you would have had to redial to get the message.
>
> Nowadays it takes a fraction of a second to get the body of a
> Usenet-message when you click on it. Modern clients in most cases master
> both processes but the idea is to download only what is nedded (=online
> readers).

Very reasonable.

I was watching the film "You've Got Mail" the other day and the dial-up
connect sound was very nostalgic.

Would make an interesting ring-tone!

Sorry, wandering more and more OT :-(

John.
--
God made the integers; all else is the work of man.

On 29/03/2023 10:06, John Hill wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2023 at 11:31:10 BST, "David Brooks" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 28/03/2023 10:09, John Hill wrote:
>>> On 28 Mar 2023 at 09:53:02 BST, "David Brooks" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/03/2023 09:42, John Hill wrote:
>>>>> On 26 Mar 2023 at 08:23:19 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> X-posts eliminated
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish you would'nt do that! It means stuff gets through my filters that would
>>>>> otherwise be suppressed.
>>>>
>>>> What, exactly, are you trying to 'filter', John?
>>>
>>> If I said that publicly, people (trolls especially) might figure out how to
>>> defeat the filters!
>>
>> What is the difference beween YOU and a so-called Troll?
>
> Basically, nothing.

Just as I thought! :-)

>> Are you, in some way, more important than other folk who wish to post in
>> a Usenet group?
>>
>> (no disrespect intended!)
>
> None taken.

I'm really pleased about that!

>>> At least Joerg is only doing it inadvertently - though why, I can't imagine.
>>
>> Joerg is FULL of self-importance!
>>
>>> Unfortunately Usenapp can't filter on body content. Unlike MacSOUP, which
>>> worked differently.
>>
>> Thank you for explaining that.
>
> I raise the question with Andre, and he explained the reason very clearly.

Andre seems like a very fine fellow!

> See also Joerg's post, which is also clear.
>
> It is curious, though, that whole messages were downloaded in the dial-up era
> when bandwidth was very limited, whereas now we have broadband only headers
> are downloaded. You'd think the trend would be the other way around!

Everything is so very quick nowadays, so I don't understand why many of
the folkhere are rather up-themselves.
What difference does it make who posts whatever they wish about whatever
they want? (Rhetorical question!)

--
Kind regards,
David

On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 13:07:01 UTC+1, David Brooks wrote:
> On 29/03/2023 10:06, John Hill wrote:
> > On 28 Mar 2023 at 11:31:10 BST, "David Brooks" <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 28/03/2023 10:09, John Hill wrote:
> >>> On 28 Mar 2023 at 09:53:02 BST, "David Brooks" <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 28/03/2023 09:42, John Hill wrote:
> >>>>> On 26 Mar 2023 at 08:23:19 BST, "Joerg Lorenz" <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> X-posts eliminated
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wish you would'nt do that! It means stuff gets through my filters that would
> >>>>> otherwise be suppressed.
> >>>>
> >>>> What, exactly, are you trying to 'filter', John?
> >>>
> >>> If I said that publicly, people (trolls especially) might figure out how to
> >>> defeat the filters!
> >>
> >> What is the difference beween YOU and a so-called Troll?
> >
> > Basically, nothing.
> Just as I thought! :-)
> >> Are you, in some way, more important than other folk who wish to post in
> >> a Usenet group?
> >>
> >> (no disrespect intended!)
> >
> > None taken.
> I'm really pleased about that!
> >>> At least Joerg is only doing it inadvertently - though why, I can't imagine.
> >>
> >> Joerg is FULL of self-importance!
> >>
> >>> Unfortunately Usenapp can't filter on body content. Unlike MacSOUP, which
> >>> worked differently.
> >>
> >> Thank you for explaining that.
> >
> > I raise the question with Andre, and he explained the reason very clearly.
> Andre seems like a very fine fellow!
> > See also Joerg's post, which is also clear.
> >
> > It is curious, though, that whole messages were downloaded in the dial-up era
> > when bandwidth was very limited, whereas now we have broadband only headers
> > are downloaded. You'd think the trend would be the other way around!

I don't think whole messages were downloaded.
It was just the headers or what we sometimes refer to as the subject line
and a few other details .

> Everything is so very quick nowadays,

Not always. depends on the usages at the time.
We regually have this problem during on-line tests or exams 1000s of students
all logging on at the same time.
Alsi everytime a students in thier 100s got from one classtooom to another their phones & laptop
switch wireless networks this can send the whole wireless network into freeze mode.

>so I don't understand why many of
> the folkhere are rather up-themselves.
> What difference does it make who posts whatever they wish about whatever
> they want? (Rhetorical question!)

These can get answered using many methods including violence which is sometimes
the only method that works. :)

>
> --
> Kind regards,
> David

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 07:15:13 +0100, dob <email@domain.com> wrote:

> On 2023-03-26 03:23:30 +0000, Commander Kinsey said:
>
>> https://i.imgur.com/HZlXAyx.jpg
>> It's a screengrab from a TV program. OS/2? Something fictitious?
>
> to windowblinds you go

speak english not?

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 23:12:56 +0100, David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> On 01/01/1970 01:00, Bosun Jimmy wrote:
>> David Brooks wrote:
>>> On 26/03/2023 04:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> https://i.imgur.com/HZlXAyx.jpg
>>>> It's a screengrab from a TV program. OS/2? Something fictitious?
>>>
>>> I'm fairly sure that it is Windows 3.1
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x
>>
>>
>> The screen-shot says, "File System: FAT 32."
>>
>> The FAT 32 file system started with Windows 95 OSR2 in 1996.
>> Some years after Windows 3.1.
>
> You are correct ..... but your 'clock' is wrong!

It wouldn't surprise me if Windows 95 came out in 96. Did you know Windows 98 was actually called Windows 97? They renamed it when it took too long to come out. However I stole a Windows 97 off an FTP site. Bloody slow site, but I downloaded it at work on several machines, so I could make more than one connection (they limited speed per IP address).

On Apr 3, 2023 at 2:03:04 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.12uffesymvhs6z@ryzen.home>:

> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 23:12:56 +0100, David Brooks <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 01/01/1970 01:00, Bosun Jimmy wrote:
>>> David Brooks wrote:
>>>> On 26/03/2023 04:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/HZlXAyx.jpg
>>>>> It's a screengrab from a TV program. OS/2? Something fictitious?
>>>>
>>>> I'm fairly sure that it is Windows 3.1
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x
>>>
>>>
>>> The screen-shot says, "File System: FAT 32."
>>>
>>> The FAT 32 file system started with Windows 95 OSR2 in 1996.
>>> Some years after Windows 3.1.
>>
>> You are correct ..... but your 'clock' is wrong!
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if Windows 95 came out in 96.

I think it was late '95... like October or so if memory serves correctly.

(Googling)

August 24, 1995

OK, not quite that late, but close.

> Did you know Windows 98 was actually called Windows 97? They renamed it when
> it took too long to come out. However I stole a Windows 97 off an FTP site.
> Bloody slow site, but I downloaded it at work on several machines, so I could
> make more than one connection (they limited speed per IP address).

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 12:15:46 +0100, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:

> John Hill <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Unfortunately Usenapp can't filter on body content.
>> Unlike MacSOUP, which worked differently.
>I don't think MacSOUP can filter on body content;
> if it can, I'd like to know how to do that, please.

If you're using a newsreader which can't do something that basic, stop using it.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 08:23:19 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 26.03.23 um 05:34 schrieb Snit:
>> On Mar 25, 2023 at 8:23:30 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
>> <op.12d81gbamvhs6z@ryzen.home>:
>>
>>> https://i.imgur.com/HZlXAyx.jpg
>>> It's a screengrab from a TV program. OS/2? Something fictitious?
>>
>> I would say Windows with some sort of skin.
>
> Would be my guess as well.
>
> X-posts eliminated

I'll eliminate you in a minute.