J
jen
(attribution restored...
"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
news:%23a%231mAWqIHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Glossary entries from one of the URL's you provided:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...ln%5Dnewswhelp
> NNTP
> "Network News Transport Protocol, " the name of a protocol that
> controls the request and exchange of Usenet messages.
> News
> The generic name for the Usenet.
> Post
> An individual Usenet message. Also, the act of sending an individual
> Usenet message to a server that will display it in the newsgroup.
> Usenet
> The collection of all posts publicly distributed through NNTP.
> ***
> It's starting to look like this *is* usenet even for you -
> From your headers in your last *post* to this *newsgroup* using NNTP
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.security.virus
> NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-150-224-76.tys.bellsouth.net 72.150.224.76
*jen replied:
NNTP-Posting-Host: tells us with which *machine* a message originated
(if not spoofed
> Anyways, it's *news* to me
)
*jen replied:
Did you miss this in my headers?
Message-ID: ( MS news server)
(a unique ID assigned to this particular message by the news server (if
not spoofed
Path: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl (MS news server
(Path: header shows, from first to last, the news server from which you
read the message, all the news servers through which it was passed, and
lastly the news server where the message originated)
I never said "this is not Usenet"(whatever that means to you
I
merely stated msnews.microsoft.com
is *not* a *part of Usenet* due to the fact they do not PEER with any
other newsservers. Why do you think other News Admins need a special
FAQ in order to add the microsoft.public.* hierarchy to their
newsservers to make MS' groups *available to anyone *ON* the Usenet*?
http://www.trigofacile.com/divers/usenet/c...crosoft-faq.txt
If you log on to msnews.microsoft.com(a *private* server) you do not
need to go through Usenet(via *your* NSP *if they happen to carry the
microsoft.public.* hierarchy) to post or read on their groups... There
are *many* private newsservers on the net(Using the NNTP protocol and
*not* on the Usenet) who chose *not* to make their groups *available to
anyone *ON* the Usenet*(you *have* to logon to their server to
read/post). Microsoft *chose* to make their groups *available to
anyone *ON* the Usenet*( if the NSP's admin adds the microsoft.public.*
hierarchy). See link above...
Capisc?
-jen
"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
news:eJpSXxlqIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Leythos said 'this is usenet' in response to your post found
> on the server (he?) uses. You said "no it isn't", in response
> to a post from (him?) on the server you use.
> By the glossary entries on the very URL you yourself provided
> to substantiate your claim, I posted excerpts from your message
> header to show that it was indeed a usenet post - using MS's
> own glossary entries.
> Actually, I don't give a crap one way or the other. Discussions
> like this bring about some interesting reading when URL's are
> actually investigated though.
>> I never said "this is not Usenet"(whatever that means to you
I
>> merely stated msnews.microsoft.com
>> is *not* a *part of Usenet* due to the fact they do not PEER with any
>> other newsservers.
> Sure, that's what you say *now*, but your posted usenet article
P
> indicates otherwise.
> Anyway, no more responses from me in this thread no matter how
> much your next usenet post tries to egg me on.
>
)
*Straw Man response noted
[A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation
of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw
man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an
opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that
position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the
opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful
rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but
it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's
actual argument has not been refuted).]
-jen
"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
news:%23a%231mAWqIHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Glossary entries from one of the URL's you provided:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...ln%5Dnewswhelp
> NNTP
> "Network News Transport Protocol, " the name of a protocol that
> controls the request and exchange of Usenet messages.
> News
> The generic name for the Usenet.
> Post
> An individual Usenet message. Also, the act of sending an individual
> Usenet message to a server that will display it in the newsgroup.
> Usenet
> The collection of all posts publicly distributed through NNTP.
> ***
> It's starting to look like this *is* usenet even for you -
> From your headers in your last *post* to this *newsgroup* using NNTP
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.security.virus
> NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-150-224-76.tys.bellsouth.net 72.150.224.76
*jen replied:
NNTP-Posting-Host: tells us with which *machine* a message originated
(if not spoofed
> Anyways, it's *news* to me
*jen replied:
Did you miss this in my headers?
Message-ID: ( MS news server)
(a unique ID assigned to this particular message by the news server (if
not spoofed
Path: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl (MS news server
(Path: header shows, from first to last, the news server from which you
read the message, all the news servers through which it was passed, and
lastly the news server where the message originated)
I never said "this is not Usenet"(whatever that means to you
merely stated msnews.microsoft.com
is *not* a *part of Usenet* due to the fact they do not PEER with any
other newsservers. Why do you think other News Admins need a special
FAQ in order to add the microsoft.public.* hierarchy to their
newsservers to make MS' groups *available to anyone *ON* the Usenet*?
http://www.trigofacile.com/divers/usenet/c...crosoft-faq.txt
If you log on to msnews.microsoft.com(a *private* server) you do not
need to go through Usenet(via *your* NSP *if they happen to carry the
microsoft.public.* hierarchy) to post or read on their groups... There
are *many* private newsservers on the net(Using the NNTP protocol and
*not* on the Usenet) who chose *not* to make their groups *available to
anyone *ON* the Usenet*(you *have* to logon to their server to
read/post). Microsoft *chose* to make their groups *available to
anyone *ON* the Usenet*( if the NSP's admin adds the microsoft.public.*
hierarchy). See link above...
Capisc?
-jen
"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
news:eJpSXxlqIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Leythos said 'this is usenet' in response to your post found
> on the server (he?) uses. You said "no it isn't", in response
> to a post from (him?) on the server you use.
> By the glossary entries on the very URL you yourself provided
> to substantiate your claim, I posted excerpts from your message
> header to show that it was indeed a usenet post - using MS's
> own glossary entries.
> Actually, I don't give a crap one way or the other. Discussions
> like this bring about some interesting reading when URL's are
> actually investigated though.
>> I never said "this is not Usenet"(whatever that means to you
>> merely stated msnews.microsoft.com
>> is *not* a *part of Usenet* due to the fact they do not PEER with any
>> other newsservers.
> Sure, that's what you say *now*, but your posted usenet article
> indicates otherwise.
> Anyway, no more responses from me in this thread no matter how
> much your next usenet post tries to egg me on.
>
*Straw Man response noted
[A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation
of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw
man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an
opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that
position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the
opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful
rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but
it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's
actual argument has not been refuted).]
-jen