Cross posting

A Google search seems to indicate no method for disallowing
messages posted to more than one newsgroup using Outlook Express
and other newsreaders with the facility seem to be flaky or
rather ancient. Has anyone had any new ideas on the subject
since cross often seems to be an indication of trolling or early
teen scatological posts?


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA

From: "James Silverton"

| A Google search seems to indicate no method for disallowing
| messages posted to more than one newsgroup using Outlook Express
| and other newsreaders with the facility seem to be flaky or
| rather ancient. Has anyone had any new ideas on the subject
| since cross often seems to be an indication of trolling or early
| teen scatological posts?
|
| --
| James V. Silverton
| Potomac, Maryland, USA
|

Cross-posting is often abused and therefore associated with spam. However, if the
appropriate News Groups are selected where the subject matter is On Topic in the
Cross-Posted message that is OK. In addition, it is often best to set a follow-up to a
chosen News Group such that all collected replies to the post are herded into that one
chosen News Group.

Cross-Posting is also preferred over Multi-Posting. There is nothing worse than going to a
half a dozen News Groups and you find the same posted message. Often those other News
Groups will have different answers/replies.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

David H. Lipman wrote:
From: "James Silverton"

A Google search seems to indicate no method for disallowing
messages posted to more than one newsgroup using Outlook
Express
--
James V. Silverton

Cross-posting is often abused and therefore associated with
spam.
However, if the appropriate News Groups are selected where the
subject matter is On Topic in the Cross-Posted message that is
OK.
In addition, it is often best to set a follow-up to a chosen
News
Group such that all collected replies to the post are herded
into
that one chosen News Group.

Cross-Posting is also preferred over Multi-Posting. There is
nothing
worse than going to a half a dozen News Groups and you find
the same
posted message. Often those other News Groups will have
different
answers/replies.

I can certainly understand what you say but, for myself, I wish
there was a rule that would allow me to reject *all*
cross-posting. I think I could live without the small amount of
legitimate cross posts.

--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA

"David H. Lipman" wrote in message
....
it is often best to set a follow-up to a chosen News Group such that all
collected replies to the post are herded into that one chosen News Group.

This is the "convention" about cross-posting that I have the greatest
difficulty. If somebody who normally posts in one newsgroup
cross-posts into my newsgroup and I answer it I don't want to have
to go through the effort of subscribing to his chosen follow-up newsgroup
just to be able to check on any subthread my reply might cause.
In cases where the chosen follow-up newsgroup is a USENET
newsgroup that wouldn't even be possible because the only server
that I can connect to is the Microsoft msnews server.
Much better that the subthread continue including my newsgroup
*and* whatever follow-up newsgroup OP wants to use.
Similarly dropping one of the other newsgroups from the list may
force someone who subscribes only to it to subscribe to the follow-up
newsgroup just to be aware of any thread continuation.
Therefore, if the topic was relevant to those newsgroups I think
it should be continued in them all as a courtesy to their readers.

Followup-To causes confusion too. For example, I once started
a thread cross-posting to another newsgroup hoping to elicit some expert
comment on matters which were relevant to both newsgroups and later
discovered I was replying to subthreads which were no longer
including that other newsgroup because someone had set
their own Followup-To back to my newsgoup, thus cutting off
any possible input from the readers I had originally hoped to attract!

The only time that I have thought that Followup-To was used well
was when the OP included a promise to repost a summary of all replies.
I can't remember if that was a case of Followup-To: poster
and then I suppose subsequently to followup E-mail threads
but even that approach seems to sabotage the collaborative intent
of newsgroup discussions.


IMO

Robert Aldwinckle
---

"Robert Aldwinckle" wrote in message

"David H. Lipman" wrote in message
...
it is often best to set a follow-up to a chosen News Group such that all
collected replies to the post are herded into that one chosen News Group.

This is the "convention" about cross-posting that I have the greatest
difficulty. If somebody who normally posts in one newsgroup
cross-posts into my newsgroup and I answer it I don't want to have
to go through the effort of subscribing to his chosen follow-up newsgroup
just to be able to check on any subthread my reply might cause.
In cases where the chosen follow-up newsgroup is a USENET
newsgroup that wouldn't even be possible because the only server
that I can connect to is the Microsoft msnews server.
Much better that the subthread continue including my newsgroup
*and* whatever follow-up newsgroup OP wants to use.
Similarly dropping one of the other newsgroups from the list may
force someone who subscribes only to it to subscribe to the follow-up
newsgroup just to be aware of any thread continuation.
Therefore, if the topic was relevant to those newsgroups I think
it should be continued in them all as a courtesy to their readers.

Followup-To causes confusion too. For example, I once started
a thread cross-posting to another newsgroup hoping to elicit some expert
comment on matters which were relevant to both newsgroups and later
discovered I was replying to subthreads which were no longer
including that other newsgroup because someone had set
their own Followup-To back to my newsgoup, thus cutting off
any possible input from the readers I had originally hoped to attract!

The only time that I have thought that Followup-To was used well
was when the OP included a promise to repost a summary of all replies.
I can't remember if that was a case of Followup-To: poster
and then I suppose subsequently to followup E-mail threads
but even that approach seems to sabotage the collaborative intent
of newsgroup discussions.


IMO

Robert Aldwinckle
---

If FollowUp is set and I reply, I unset it.

--
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP, IE/OE
Please respond in Newsgroup only. Do not send email
http://www.fjsmjs.com
Protect your PC
http://www.microsoft.com./athome/sec...t/default.aspx
http://defendingyourmachine.blogspot.com/