Usenet (USEr NETwork) is a global, distributed Internet discussion system that evolved from a general purpose UUCP network of the same name. It was conceived by Duke University graduate students Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis in 1979. Users read and post e-mail-like messages (called "articles") to a number of distributed newsgroups, categories that resemble bulletin board systems in most respects. The medium is distributed among a large number of servers, which store and forward messages to one another. Individual users download and post messages to a single server, usually operated by their ISP or university, and the servers exchange the messages between each other. Usenet has been described as system of online collaboration and interaction similar to today's Web 2.0. It has also been pointed out that its decentralized structure makes it more democratic than Web 2.0.
Usenet is one of the oldest computer network communications systems still in widespread use. It was established in 1980, following experiments from the previous year, over a decade before the World Wide Web was introduced and the general public got access to the Internet. It was originally conceived as a "poor man's ARPANET," employing UUCP to offer mail and file transfers, as well as announcements through the newly developed news software. This system, developed at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University, was called USENET to emphasize its creators' hope that the USENIX organization would take an active role in its operation (Daniel et al, 1980).Introduction
The articles that users post to Usenet are organized into topical categories called newsgroups, which are themselves logically organized into hierarchies of subjects. For instance, sci.math and sci.physics are within the sci hierarchy, for science. When a user subscribes to a newsgroup, the news client software keeps track of which articles that user has read.
In most newsgroups, the majority of the articles are responses to some other article. The set of articles which can be traced to one single non-reply article is called a thread. Most modern newsreaders display the articles arranged into threads and subthreads, making it easy to follow a single discussion in a high-volume newsgroup.
When a user posts an article, it is initially only available on that user's news server. Each news server, however, talks to one or more other servers (its "newsfeeds") and exchanges articles with them. In this fashion, the article is copied from server to server and (if all goes well) eventually reaches every server in the network. The later peer-to-peer networks operate on a similar principle; but for Usenet it is normally the sender, rather than the receiver, who initiates transfers. Some have noted that this seems a monstrously inefficient protocol in the era of abundant high-speed network access. Usenet was designed for a time when networks were much slower, and not always available. Many sites on the original Usenet network would connect only once or twice a day to batch-transfer messages in and out.
Usenet has significant cultural importance in the networked world, having given rise to, or popularized, many widely recognized concepts and terms such as "FAQ" and "spam."
Today, almost all Usenet traffic is carried over the Internet. The current format and transmission of Usenet articles is very similar to that of Internet email messages. However, Usenet articles are posted for general consumption; any usenet user has access to all newsgroups, unlike email, which requires a list of known recipients.
Today, Usenet has diminished in importance with respect to mailing lists, web forums and weblogs. The difference, though, is that Usenet requires no personal registration with the group concerned, that information need not be stored on a remote server, that archives are always available, and that reading the messages requires not a mail or web client, but a news client (included in many modern e-mail clients).
ISPs, news servers, and newsfeeds
Many Internet service providers, and many other Internet sites, operate news servers for their users to access. ISPs that do not operate their own servers directly will often offer their users an account from another provider that specifically operates newsfeeds. Most commonly, these accounts are through Supernews, Giganews and Usenet.com. Usually the ISP will get a kickback for referring the customer to the Usenet provider. In early news implementations, the server and newsreader were a single program suite, running on the same system. Today, one uses separate newsreader client software, a program that resembles an email client but accesses Usenet servers instead.
Not all ISPs run news servers. A news server is one of the most difficult Internet services to administer well because of the large amount of data involved, small customer base (compared to mainstream Internet services such as email and web access), and a disproportionately high volume of customer support incidents (frequently complaining of missing news articles that are not the ISP's fault). Some ISPs outsource news operation to specialist sites, which will usually appear to a user as though the ISP ran the server itself. Many sites carry a restricted newsfeed, with a limited number of newsgroups. Commonly omitted from such a newsfeed are foreign-language newsgroups and the alt.binaries hierarchy which largely carries software, music, videos and images, and accounts for over 99 percent of article data.
For those who have access to the Internet, but do not have access to a news server, Google Groups ([3]) allows reading and posting of text news groups via the World Wide Web. Though this or other "news-to-Web gateways" are not always as easy to use as specialized newsreader software—especially when threads get long—they are often much easier to search. Users who lack access to an ISP news server can use Google Groups to access the alt.free.newsservers newsgroup, which has information about open news servers.
There are also Usenet providers that specialize in offering service to users whose ISPs do not carry news, or that carry a restricted feed. One list of such providers is available at UsenetProviders' list of Usenet providers (Germany) or Jeremy Nixon's list of (paid) Usenet providers.
See also news server operation for an overview of how news systems are implemented.
Not all ISPs run news servers. A news server is one of the most difficult Internet services to administer well because of the large amount of data involved, small customer base (compared to mainstream Internet services such as email and web access), and a disproportionately high volume of customer support incidents (frequently complaining of missing news articles that are not the ISP's fault). Some ISPs outsource news operation to specialist sites, which will usually appear to a user as though the ISP ran the server itself. Many sites carry a restricted newsfeed, with a limited number of newsgroups. Commonly omitted from such a newsfeed are foreign-language newsgroups and the alt.binaries hierarchy which largely carries software, music, videos and images, and accounts for over 99 percent of article data.
For those who have access to the Internet, but do not have access to a news server, Google Groups ([3]) allows reading and posting of text news groups via the World Wide Web. Though this or other "news-to-Web gateways" are not always as easy to use as specialized newsreader software—especially when threads get long—they are often much easier to search. Users who lack access to an ISP news server can use Google Groups to access the alt.free.newsservers newsgroup, which has information about open news servers.
There are also Usenet providers that specialize in offering service to users whose ISPs do not carry news, or that carry a restricted feed. One list of such providers is available at UsenetProviders' list of Usenet providers (Germany) or Jeremy Nixon's list of (paid) Usenet providers.
See also news server operation for an overview of how news systems are implemented.
Newsreader clients
Newsgroups are typically accessed with special client software that connects to a news server. With the rise of the world wide web, web front-ends have sometimes been used to access newsgroups via the aforementioned news-to-web gateways. However, these gateways often provide limited features, and for that reason using a local client is still regarded as the best way to access newsgroups.
Newsreader clients are available for all major operating systems and come in all shapes and sizes. Mail clients or "communication suites" also now commonly have an integrated newsreader. Often, however, these integrated clients are of low quality, e.g. incorrectly implementing Usenet protocols, standards and conventions. Many of these integrated clients, for example the one in Microsoft's Outlook Express, are disliked by purists because of their misbehavior.
Newsreader clients are available for all major operating systems and come in all shapes and sizes. Mail clients or "communication suites" also now commonly have an integrated newsreader. Often, however, these integrated clients are of low quality, e.g. incorrectly implementing Usenet protocols, standards and conventions. Many of these integrated clients, for example the one in Microsoft's Outlook Express, are disliked by purists because of their misbehavior.
Moderated and unmoderated newsgroups
A minority of newsgroups are moderated. That means that messages submitted by readers are not distributed to USENET, but instead are emailed to the moderators of the newsgroup, for approval. Moderated newsgroups have rules called charters. Moderators are persons whose job is to ensure that messages that the readers see in newsgroups conform to the charter of the newsgroup. Typically, moderators are appointed in the proposal for the newsgroup, and changes of moderators follow a succession plan.
The job of the moderator is to receive submitted articles, review them, and inject approved articles so that they can be properly propagated worldwide. Such articles must bear the Approved: header line.
Unmoderated newsgroups form the majority of USENET newsgroups, and messages submitted by readers for unmoderated newsgroups are immediately propagated for everyone to see.
Creation of moderated newsgroups often becomes a hot subject of controversy, raising issues regarding censorship and the desire of a subset of users to form an intentional community.
The job of the moderator is to receive submitted articles, review them, and inject approved articles so that they can be properly propagated worldwide. Such articles must bear the Approved: header line.
Unmoderated newsgroups form the majority of USENET newsgroups, and messages submitted by readers for unmoderated newsgroups are immediately propagated for everyone to see.
Creation of moderated newsgroups often becomes a hot subject of controversy, raising issues regarding censorship and the desire of a subset of users to form an intentional community.
Technical details
Usenet is a set of protocols for generating, storing and retrieving news "articles" (which resemble Internet mail messages) and for exchanging them among a readership which is potentially widely distributed. These protocols most commonly use a flooding algorithm which propagates copies throughout a network of participating servers. Whenever a message reaches a server, that server forwards the message to all its network neighbors that haven't yet seen the article. Only one copy of a message is stored per server, and each server makes it available on demand to the (typically local) readers able to access that server. Usenet was thus one of the first peer-to-peer applications, although in this case the "peers" are themselves servers that the users then access, rather than the users themselves being peers on the network.
RFC 850 was the first formal specification of the messages exchanged by Usenet servers. It was superseded by RFC 1036.
One difference between Usenet and newer peer-to-peer applications is that one can request the automated removal of a posting from the whole network by creating a cancel message, although due to a lack of authentication and resultant abuse, this capability is frequently disabled. Copyright holders may still request the manual deletion of infringing material using the provisions of World Intellectual Property Organization treaty implementations, such as the U.S. Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.
On the Internet, Usenet is typically on TCP Port 119.
RFC 850 was the first formal specification of the messages exchanged by Usenet servers. It was superseded by RFC 1036.
One difference between Usenet and newer peer-to-peer applications is that one can request the automated removal of a posting from the whole network by creating a cancel message, although due to a lack of authentication and resultant abuse, this capability is frequently disabled. Copyright holders may still request the manual deletion of infringing material using the provisions of World Intellectual Property Organization treaty implementations, such as the U.S. Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.
On the Internet, Usenet is typically on TCP Port 119.
Organization
The major set of worldwide newsgroups is contained within nine hierarchies, eight of which are operated under consensual guidelines that govern their administration and naming. The current "Big Eight" are:
* comp.*: computer-related discussions (comp.software, comp.sys.amiga)
* misc.*: Miscellaneous topics (misc.education, misc.forsale, misc.kids)
* news.*: Discussions and announcements about news (meaning Usenet, not current events) (news.groups, news.admin)
* rec.*: Recreation and entertainment (rec.music, rec.arts.movies)
* sci.*: Science related discussions (sci.psychology, sci.research)
* soc.*: Social discussions (soc.college.org, soc.culture.african)
* talk.*: Talk about various controversial topics (talk.religion, talk.politics, talk.origins)
* humanities.*: Fine arts, literature, and philosophy (humanities.classics, humanities.design.misc)
(Note: the asterisks are used as wildmat patterns, examples follow in parentheses)
See also Great Renaming.
The alt.* hierarchy is not subject to the procedures controlling groups in the Big Eight, and it is as a result less organized. However, groups in the alt.* hierarchy tend to be more specialized or specific—for example, there might be a newsgroup under the Big Eight which contains discussions about children's books, but a group in the alt hierarchy may be dedicated to one specific author of children's books. Binaries are posted in alt.binaries.*, making it the largest of all the hierarchies.
Many other hierarchies of newsgroups are distributed alongside these. Regional and language-specific hierarchies such as japan.*, malta.* and ne.* serve specific regions such as Japan, Malta and New England. Companies such as Microsoft administer their own hierarchies to discuss their products and offer community technical support. Some users prefer to use the term "Usenet" to refer only to the Big Eight hierarchies; others include alt as well. The more general term "netnews" incorporates the entire medium, including private organizational news systems.
* comp.*: computer-related discussions (comp.software, comp.sys.amiga)
* misc.*: Miscellaneous topics (misc.education, misc.forsale, misc.kids)
* news.*: Discussions and announcements about news (meaning Usenet, not current events) (news.groups, news.admin)
* rec.*: Recreation and entertainment (rec.music, rec.arts.movies)
* sci.*: Science related discussions (sci.psychology, sci.research)
* soc.*: Social discussions (soc.college.org, soc.culture.african)
* talk.*: Talk about various controversial topics (talk.religion, talk.politics, talk.origins)
* humanities.*: Fine arts, literature, and philosophy (humanities.classics, humanities.design.misc)
(Note: the asterisks are used as wildmat patterns, examples follow in parentheses)
See also Great Renaming.
The alt.* hierarchy is not subject to the procedures controlling groups in the Big Eight, and it is as a result less organized. However, groups in the alt.* hierarchy tend to be more specialized or specific—for example, there might be a newsgroup under the Big Eight which contains discussions about children's books, but a group in the alt hierarchy may be dedicated to one specific author of children's books. Binaries are posted in alt.binaries.*, making it the largest of all the hierarchies.
Many other hierarchies of newsgroups are distributed alongside these. Regional and language-specific hierarchies such as japan.*, malta.* and ne.* serve specific regions such as Japan, Malta and New England. Companies such as Microsoft administer their own hierarchies to discuss their products and offer community technical support. Some users prefer to use the term "Usenet" to refer only to the Big Eight hierarchies; others include alt as well. The more general term "netnews" incorporates the entire medium, including private organizational news systems.
Binary content
Usenet was originally created to distribute text content encoded in the 7-bit ASCII character set. With the help of programs that encode 8-bit values into ASCII, it became practical to distribute binary files content. Binary posts, due to their size and dubious copyright status, were in time restricted to specific newsgroups, making it easier for administrators to allow or disallow the traffic.
The oldest widely used encoding method is uuencode, from the Unix uucp package. In the late 1980s Usenet articles were often limited to 60,000 characters, and larger hard limits exist today. Files are therefore commonly split into sections that require reassembly by the reader.
With the header extensions and the Base64 and Quoted-Printable MIME encodings, there was a new generation of binary transport. In practice, MIME has seen increased adoption in text messages, but it is avoided for most binary attachments. Some operating systems with metadata attached to files use specialized encoding formats. For Mac OS, both Binhex and special MIME types are used.
Other lesser known encoding systems that may have been used at one time were BTOA, XX encoding, BOO, and USR encoding.
In an attempt to reduce file transfer times, an informal file encoding known as yEnc was introduced in 2001. It achieves about a 30% reduction in data transferred by assuming that most 8-bit characters can safely be transferred across the network without first encoding into the 7-bit ASCII space.
The standard method of uploading binary content to Usenet is to first archive the files into RAR archives (for large files usually in 20 MB or 50 MB parts) then create Parchive files. Parity files are used to recreate missing data. This is needed often, as not every part of the files reach a server. These are all then encoded into yEnc and uploaded to the selected binary groups.
The oldest widely used encoding method is uuencode, from the Unix uucp package. In the late 1980s Usenet articles were often limited to 60,000 characters, and larger hard limits exist today. Files are therefore commonly split into sections that require reassembly by the reader.
With the header extensions and the Base64 and Quoted-Printable MIME encodings, there was a new generation of binary transport. In practice, MIME has seen increased adoption in text messages, but it is avoided for most binary attachments. Some operating systems with metadata attached to files use specialized encoding formats. For Mac OS, both Binhex and special MIME types are used.
Other lesser known encoding systems that may have been used at one time were BTOA, XX encoding, BOO, and USR encoding.
In an attempt to reduce file transfer times, an informal file encoding known as yEnc was introduced in 2001. It achieves about a 30% reduction in data transferred by assuming that most 8-bit characters can safely be transferred across the network without first encoding into the 7-bit ASCII space.
The standard method of uploading binary content to Usenet is to first archive the files into RAR archives (for large files usually in 20 MB or 50 MB parts) then create Parchive files. Parity files are used to recreate missing data. This is needed often, as not every part of the files reach a server. These are all then encoded into yEnc and uploaded to the selected binary groups.
History
Newsgroup experiments first occurred in 1979. Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis of Duke University came up with the idea as a replacement for a local announcement program, and established a link with nearby University of North Carolina using Bourne shell scripts written by Steve Bellovin. The public release of news was in the form of conventional compiled software, written by Steve Daniel and Truscott.
UUCP networks spread quickly due to the lower costs involved, and the ability to use existing leased lines, X.25 links or even ARPANET connections. By 1983 the number of UUCP hosts had grown to 550, nearly doubling to 940 in 1984.
As the mesh of UUCP hosts rapidly expanded, it became desirable to distinguish the Usenet subset from the overall network. A vote was taken at the 1982 USENIX conference to choose a new name. The name Usenet was retained, but it was established that it only applied to news.[5] The name UUCPNET became the common name for the overall network.
In addition to UUCP, early Usenet traffic was also exchanged with Fidonet and other dial-up BBS networks. Widespread use of Usenet by the BBS community was facilitated by the introduction of UUCP feeds made possible by MS-DOS implementations of UUCP such as UFGATE (UUCP to FidoNet Gateway), FSUUCP and UUPC. The Network News Transfer Protocol, or NNTP, was introduced in 1985 to distribute Usenet articles over TCP/IP as a more flexible alternative to informal Internet transfers of UUCP traffic. Since the Internet boom of the 1990s, almost all Usenet distribution is over NNTP, rendering obsolete the earlier dictum that "Usenet is not the Internet."
Early versions of Usenet used Duke's A News software. At Berkeley an improved version called B News was produced by Matt Glickman and Mark Horton. With a message format that offered compatibility with Internet mail and improved performance, it became the dominant server software. C News, developed by Geoff Collyer and Henry Spencer at the University of Toronto, was comparable to B News in features but offered considerably faster processing. In the early 1990s, InterNetNews by Rich Salz was developed to take advantage of the continuous message flow made possible by NNTP versus the batched store-and-forward design of UUCP. Since that time INN development has continued, and other news server software has also been developed.
Usenet was the initial Internet community and the place for many of the most important public developments in the commercial Internet. It was the place where Tim Berners-Lee announced the launch of the World Wide Web,[6] and Marc Andreesen announced the creation of the Mosaic browser and the introduction of the image tag,[7] which revolutionized the World Wide Web by turning it into a graphical medium.
Web-based archiving of Usenet posts began in 1995 at Deja News with a very large, searchable database. In 2001, this database was acquired by Google.
AOL announced that it would discontinue its integrated Usenet service in early 2005, citing the growing popularity of weblogs, chat forums and on-line conferencing. The AOL community had a tremendous role in popularizing the Usenet some 11 years earlier, with all of its positive and negative aspects. This change marked the end of the legendary Eternal September. Others, however, feel that Google Groups, especially with its new user interface, has picked up the torch that AOL has dropped—and that Eternal September has yet to end.
Over time, the amount of Usenet traffic has steadily increased. It is important to note, however, that much of this traffic increase reflects not an increase in discrete users or newsgroup discussions, but instead the combination of massive automated spamming and an increase in the use of .binaries newsgroups in which large files (frequently pornography or pirated media) are often posted publicly.
UUCP networks spread quickly due to the lower costs involved, and the ability to use existing leased lines, X.25 links or even ARPANET connections. By 1983 the number of UUCP hosts had grown to 550, nearly doubling to 940 in 1984.
As the mesh of UUCP hosts rapidly expanded, it became desirable to distinguish the Usenet subset from the overall network. A vote was taken at the 1982 USENIX conference to choose a new name. The name Usenet was retained, but it was established that it only applied to news.[5] The name UUCPNET became the common name for the overall network.
In addition to UUCP, early Usenet traffic was also exchanged with Fidonet and other dial-up BBS networks. Widespread use of Usenet by the BBS community was facilitated by the introduction of UUCP feeds made possible by MS-DOS implementations of UUCP such as UFGATE (UUCP to FidoNet Gateway), FSUUCP and UUPC. The Network News Transfer Protocol, or NNTP, was introduced in 1985 to distribute Usenet articles over TCP/IP as a more flexible alternative to informal Internet transfers of UUCP traffic. Since the Internet boom of the 1990s, almost all Usenet distribution is over NNTP, rendering obsolete the earlier dictum that "Usenet is not the Internet."
Early versions of Usenet used Duke's A News software. At Berkeley an improved version called B News was produced by Matt Glickman and Mark Horton. With a message format that offered compatibility with Internet mail and improved performance, it became the dominant server software. C News, developed by Geoff Collyer and Henry Spencer at the University of Toronto, was comparable to B News in features but offered considerably faster processing. In the early 1990s, InterNetNews by Rich Salz was developed to take advantage of the continuous message flow made possible by NNTP versus the batched store-and-forward design of UUCP. Since that time INN development has continued, and other news server software has also been developed.
Usenet was the initial Internet community and the place for many of the most important public developments in the commercial Internet. It was the place where Tim Berners-Lee announced the launch of the World Wide Web,[6] and Marc Andreesen announced the creation of the Mosaic browser and the introduction of the image tag,[7] which revolutionized the World Wide Web by turning it into a graphical medium.
Web-based archiving of Usenet posts began in 1995 at Deja News with a very large, searchable database. In 2001, this database was acquired by Google.
AOL announced that it would discontinue its integrated Usenet service in early 2005, citing the growing popularity of weblogs, chat forums and on-line conferencing. The AOL community had a tremendous role in popularizing the Usenet some 11 years earlier, with all of its positive and negative aspects. This change marked the end of the legendary Eternal September. Others, however, feel that Google Groups, especially with its new user interface, has picked up the torch that AOL has dropped—and that Eternal September has yet to end.
Over time, the amount of Usenet traffic has steadily increased. It is important to note, however, that much of this traffic increase reflects not an increase in discrete users or newsgroup discussions, but instead the combination of massive automated spamming and an increase in the use of .binaries newsgroups in which large files (frequently pornography or pirated media) are often posted publicly.
Archives and Web interfaces
Google Groups / DejaNews
Google Groups hosts an archive of Usenet posts dating back to May 1981. The archive was originally started by a company called DejaNews (later only Deja), purchased by Google in February 2001. A Usenet Timeline is provided in the Help section. Already during the DejaNews era the archive had become a popular constant in Usenet culture, and remains so today.
However, there are two main issues people have with Google Groups and similar services:
1. Fear of loss of privacy. An archive simplifies ways to profile people. This has partly been countered with the introduction of the non-standard X-No-Archive: Yes header, which is itself seen as controversial.
2. The web interface. (See the following section.)
Note that there are two distinct types of "Google Groups", namely traditional Usenet groups and Google internal groups that can only be accessed from Google. The Google user interface and documentation does not make the distinction clear, which is probably deliberate. To many people a "Google Group" is just a group accessible (only) via Google.
The syntax to view an article available on Google Groups by its Message-ID can be simplified to http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=without-angle-brackets@example.org
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4zCix009Cv2acya@bionic35.bionic.zer.de
or to view the entire thread, use threadm= instead of selm=
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=4zCix009Cv2acya@bionic35.bionic.zer.de
However, there are two main issues people have with Google Groups and similar services:
1. Fear of loss of privacy. An archive simplifies ways to profile people. This has partly been countered with the introduction of the non-standard X-No-Archive: Yes header, which is itself seen as controversial.
2. The web interface. (See the following section.)
Note that there are two distinct types of "Google Groups", namely traditional Usenet groups and Google internal groups that can only be accessed from Google. The Google user interface and documentation does not make the distinction clear, which is probably deliberate. To many people a "Google Group" is just a group accessible (only) via Google.
The syntax to view an article available on Google Groups by its Message-ID can be simplified to http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=without-angle-brackets@example.org
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4zCix009Cv2acya@bionic35.bionic.zer.de
or to view the entire thread, use threadm= instead of selm=
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=4zCix009Cv2acya@bionic35.bionic.zer.de
Web interfaces
With the rising popularity of the World Wide Web, so have arisen many Web-to-Usenet gateways. These interfaces are seen as controversial by some Usenet users. Google Groups is usually cited as a prime example of what can go wrong with Web-to-Usenet gateways, since it is the most popular and largest such service. However, the criticism also applies to many other such gateways in principle.
Since February 2001 Google Groups has provided a web interface to Usenet newsgroups. It also allows the creation of mailing lists like Yahoo! Groups. In early 2007 Google Groups moved to a new "Web 2.0" interface with more icons, larger type and an America On-Line type interface. While seemingly deployed to improve the accessiblity of USENET the new interface has been widely (indeed nearly universally) disparaged for both its reduced usability and its utility.
One of many concerns that have been expressed about the Google interface is that novices may have difficulty realising that they are participating in a Usenet newsgroup rather than in a web forum hosted by Google. Google Groups is not very outspoken about the fact and doesn't make it very clear in the web interface that some of the groups at Google Groups are Usenet groups, while others are local Google-only groups.
Other concerns are:
* Web-to-Usenet gateways provide a service for e-mail spammers, since a spammer's web spider can now also extract e-mail addresses from Usenet postings without any additional effort. Before such gateways, an e-mail spammer would have to use a separate tool to gain access to a news feed (as Usenet spammers do). Since 2005, Google Groups tries to prevent e-mail address harvesting by scrambling the display of e-mail addresses on their web pages.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways often hide the fact from users that they are actually on Usenet, and that it would be a good idea to learn and follow Usenet customs and established rules. They further hide the fact that Usenet is still at its core a decentralized store-and-forward system and, therefore, articles do not simply appear "everywhere" once they have been posted. This typically leads to multiple posts with the same contents and/or expressed dissatisfaction about why there are no answers within minutes and/or why there are multiple answers which essentially say the same thing.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways often cut away or hide "overhead" information (e.g. header information like message IDs) or, even worse, signatures. This leaves Web-users puzzled about what people are talking about when they write things like "See my sig" or "See msgid ...".
* Web-to-Usenet gateways typically provide fewer features than conventional News Reader software. For example, the ability to filter (users, subject lines, etc.), to sort threads in multiple ways, draft articles, etc., is typically missing.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways are often very badly policed. Post 2006, this is typical not only of such gateways, but also many feed providers. Abusive behavior from the Web-to-Usenet gateway users in some newsgroups is now legendary, and the operators have not yet mustered the will and/or resources to effectively keep a lid on abusive users. Automated complaint systems seldom result in any action.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways enable less technically savvy people to enter Usenet. These people tend to be less familiar with the Usenet system and Usenet etiquette, and can cause annoyance for other users.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways lower the entry barrier to Usenet. The slightly higher entry requirements, and the degree of obscurity Usenet possesses required users to have a higher level of knowledge and capability and as such tended to exclude those who were not at least mildly computer savvy, which in turn had the effect of tending to guarantee at least a minimum level of education, which in turn, overall, tended to ensure at least a minimum level of decency in behaviour. This is not an iron rule of course, but merely a tendency overall, which of course when applied to millions of people, had a profound effect on the overall culture of Usenet.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways often offer a searchable archive. One of the advantages of Usenet was that posters knew their material was only being read by the readership of their group and would, in a week or two, have disappeared forever. This particular type of semi-public, semi-private conversation was unusual and very useful.
On the positive side:
* Web-to-Usenet gateways lower the entry barrier to Usenet, making it easier for non-technical people to become involved.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways often offer a searchable archive, making the vast amount of knowledge in Usenet more easily accessible.
Since February 2001 Google Groups has provided a web interface to Usenet newsgroups. It also allows the creation of mailing lists like Yahoo! Groups. In early 2007 Google Groups moved to a new "Web 2.0" interface with more icons, larger type and an America On-Line type interface. While seemingly deployed to improve the accessiblity of USENET the new interface has been widely (indeed nearly universally) disparaged for both its reduced usability and its utility.
One of many concerns that have been expressed about the Google interface is that novices may have difficulty realising that they are participating in a Usenet newsgroup rather than in a web forum hosted by Google. Google Groups is not very outspoken about the fact and doesn't make it very clear in the web interface that some of the groups at Google Groups are Usenet groups, while others are local Google-only groups.
Other concerns are:
* Web-to-Usenet gateways provide a service for e-mail spammers, since a spammer's web spider can now also extract e-mail addresses from Usenet postings without any additional effort. Before such gateways, an e-mail spammer would have to use a separate tool to gain access to a news feed (as Usenet spammers do). Since 2005, Google Groups tries to prevent e-mail address harvesting by scrambling the display of e-mail addresses on their web pages.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways often hide the fact from users that they are actually on Usenet, and that it would be a good idea to learn and follow Usenet customs and established rules. They further hide the fact that Usenet is still at its core a decentralized store-and-forward system and, therefore, articles do not simply appear "everywhere" once they have been posted. This typically leads to multiple posts with the same contents and/or expressed dissatisfaction about why there are no answers within minutes and/or why there are multiple answers which essentially say the same thing.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways often cut away or hide "overhead" information (e.g. header information like message IDs) or, even worse, signatures. This leaves Web-users puzzled about what people are talking about when they write things like "See my sig" or "See msgid ...".
* Web-to-Usenet gateways typically provide fewer features than conventional News Reader software. For example, the ability to filter (users, subject lines, etc.), to sort threads in multiple ways, draft articles, etc., is typically missing.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways are often very badly policed. Post 2006, this is typical not only of such gateways, but also many feed providers. Abusive behavior from the Web-to-Usenet gateway users in some newsgroups is now legendary, and the operators have not yet mustered the will and/or resources to effectively keep a lid on abusive users. Automated complaint systems seldom result in any action.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways enable less technically savvy people to enter Usenet. These people tend to be less familiar with the Usenet system and Usenet etiquette, and can cause annoyance for other users.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways lower the entry barrier to Usenet. The slightly higher entry requirements, and the degree of obscurity Usenet possesses required users to have a higher level of knowledge and capability and as such tended to exclude those who were not at least mildly computer savvy, which in turn had the effect of tending to guarantee at least a minimum level of education, which in turn, overall, tended to ensure at least a minimum level of decency in behaviour. This is not an iron rule of course, but merely a tendency overall, which of course when applied to millions of people, had a profound effect on the overall culture of Usenet.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways often offer a searchable archive. One of the advantages of Usenet was that posters knew their material was only being read by the readership of their group and would, in a week or two, have disappeared forever. This particular type of semi-public, semi-private conversation was unusual and very useful.
On the positive side:
* Web-to-Usenet gateways lower the entry barrier to Usenet, making it easier for non-technical people to become involved.
* Web-to-Usenet gateways often offer a searchable archive, making the vast amount of knowledge in Usenet more easily accessible.
References
* Stephen Daniel, James Ellis, and Tom Truscott (1980). USENET - A General Access UNIX® Network. (inside archive as usenet/uprop.n)
* Bruce Jones, archiver (1997). USENET History mailing list archive covering 1990-1997.
* Bruce Jones, archiver (1997). USENET History mailing list archive covering 1990-1997.
Source: WIkiPedia
No comments:
Post a Comment