Posting pictures on this group

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Of cause it is that doesn't change the fact that the newsgroup server
providers still have to more space to have binaries and virtually all of
them have decided against allowing binary data in the "text" newsgroups. DO
you expect them to check each file and see if it a picture of my airplane or
a copy of "Top Gun"?

Plus with the number of free website and photo upload places it just doesn't
make since to have to have the photo of my airplane stored on each and every
news server when I can upload it to a web site and post a link.

Well, if a newsgroup provider can only turn on/off binaries as a group,
then that makes sense. My point was that images in rec groups would add
a negligible volume. However. if that means allowing all binaries on
all text-only groups then I agree, that's a bad idea.

"Marco Leon" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, OK, then if not broadband, then the increasing availability of
cheaper storage. Regardless, I don't think a non-binary titled
newsgroup will ever reach a critical mass of images being uploaded to
cause an issue (especially given the relatively low volume of messages
this group gets).

In addition to what else has already been pointed out, keep in mind that a
given newsgroup may be subject to a fixed storage quota. In a text
newsgroup, a single binary could easily be equivalent to hundreds of regular
messages, and allowing that single binary would cause hundreds of regular
messages to be discarded earlier than they otherwise would have been.

Text and binaries just aren't compatible in a single newsgroup. If the
newsgroup is not a binary newsgroup in the first place, allowing binaries
can have serious ramifications on the normal use of the newsgroup
(obviously, the converse of posting text messages to a binary newsgroup
isn't a problem).

The volume of posts that the flight simmer wannabe/troll would probably
exceed the minimal size a few images take up.

Depends on the size of the images. However, today a *small* image file is
between 500K and 1MB. With text messages running around 2K to 5K, maybe 20K
for a really really large one that hasn't had the quoted trimmed properly,
just ONE image file represents hundreds of text messages. Even a few
quickly overtake any undesirable text messages, and there's no reason to
expect that image files will be restricted in size to what passes for a
small one today.

And all of that is before considering the inflation in data size: text
encoding of binaries is incredibly wasteful (depending on the encoding being
used, it could inflate the size of the data by 30-50%).

Of course, there's also the issue that when posted to a newsgroup, a message
(binary or not) gets transmitted to each and every news server carrying that
newsgroup, whether or not any user using that news server will ever even
bother to download the message. That is also wasteful

Furthermore, many users have their news readers configured to download every
message, without a limit on size, even though they may have no interest in
looking at the binary file. So not only are news servers forced to receive,
store, and retransmit data that they never actually use, so too are users
(and many users today are still subject either to bandwidth quotas or
bandwidth charges). This is wasteful as well.

In fact, there's very little about binaries in newsgroups (whether in a
newsgroup for binaries or not) that is not wasteful.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that ISPs still bother to carry *any* binary
newsgroups. Even in the old days, when binary file transmission was pretty
much restricted to FTP or text encoding, it would have been much better to
use FTP. But at least then, one could point out that there weren't that
many freely available FTP sites where users could store binary data for
redistribution. Today, free web server space is easy to come by, and using
it solves a variety of issues, including not having to use an inefficient
encoding mechanism as well as avoiding transmitting the data to users who
don't actually need or want it.

If this discussion is to be had, what it really ought to be about is the
complete abolishment of binary newsgroups in the first place. That debate
seems to still have valid open arguments for both sides, even as clearly the
world should be moving away from them. But IMHO, the question of binaries
in a text newsgroup is obvious: they don't belong. Usenet should be moving
*forward* with the progress elsewhere in the computer industry, not
backwards.

But you know what? It ain't worth arguing because it's not a big issue
for me.

I'm not so sure it's about arguing about it. It's not like you have in your
power to change the way this newsgroup handles binaries. None of us do.
It's not a designated binary newsgroup, and so most ISPs simply don't allow
binaries in it.

To me, the question is more about education. That is, there are very real
reasons that binaries aren't allowed here, and it seems to me that a person
who believes that binaries *should* be allowed could use more information.
Rather than trying to debate with them (that is, you ) the merits of
allowing binaries, it's more about educating them about why binaries
shouldn't be allowed.

Pete

"Marco Leon" wrote in message
ups.com...
Well, if a newsgroup provider can only turn on/off binaries as a group,
then that makes sense. My point was that images in rec groups would add
a negligible volume. However. if that means allowing all binaries on
all text-only groups then I agree, that's a bad idea.

An ISP committed to the idea could easily implement a per-newsgroup policy.
In fact, they would probably simply flag the text newsgroup where binaries
are allowed as a binary newsgroup (there's no restriction on text messages
within a binary newsgroup).

The real issue is that there are genuine reasons for not allowing binaries
in a text-only newsgroup. It's much more wasteful than you seem to realize.

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" said:
"Marco Leon" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, if a newsgroup provider can only turn on/off binaries as a group,
then that makes sense. My point was that images in rec groups would add
a negligible volume. However. if that means allowing all binaries on
all text-only groups then I agree, that's a bad idea.

An ISP committed to the idea could easily implement a per-newsgroup policy.

And hire about 8 more full time news admins to keep these per-newsgroup
policy flags up to date.

In fact, they would probably simply flag the text newsgroup where binaries
are allowed as a binary newsgroup (there's no restriction on text messages
within a binary newsgroup).

Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
feeds with one configuration.

Oh wait, that's what we already do.



--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
chown -R us /yourbase
- Simon Slavin

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:37:07 -0500, "Cody Dawg"
wrote in :

Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post some
pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor (pre-Lidle)?


If you are unfamiliar with how Usenet works, consider studying the
information available he

http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html
http://www.usenet.com/articles/newsgroup_netiquette.htm
http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1
http://www.imagescape.com/helpweb/news/newsnet.html
http://www.faqs.org/usenet/
http://www.ibiblio.org/usenet-i/usenet-help.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette

In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
feeds with one configuration.

Oh wait, that's what we already do.

Circa 1996 there was a guy running a cancelbot on "large" binaries
in non-binary groups (Richard somethingorother). Is that still
happening or did he give that up?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
feeds with one configuration.

Oh wait, that's what we already do.

Circa 1996 there was a guy running a cancelbot on "large" binaries
in non-binary groups (Richard somethingorother). Is that still
happening or did he give that up?


He probably gave up because most servers stopped accepting cancel messages.

Well, OK, then if not broadband, then the increasing availability of
cheaper storage.

Simplified a bit, the way Usenet works, you make a post. That post gets
copied again and again and again, making its way to umpteen servers all
over the world, so that it can be read. If it's a small binary it is
still lots bigger than a long post. No matter how cheap storage and
bandwidth is, it is still finite, and many servers will only hold so
much. Every single binary therefore kicks out lots of text posts.

The way the web works, you upload to your site, and it sits there. ONLY
when people come to look at the site is it transmitted to another
server. So even a =huge= binary on the web has far less impact as if it
were on Usenet.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Regardless, I don't think a non-binary titled
newsgroup will ever reach a critical mass of images being uploaded to
cause an issue...

Once it's tolerated, it's a short hop to advertising video.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In a previous article, Bob Noel said:
In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
feeds with one configuration.

Oh wait, that's what we already do.

Circa 1996 there was a guy running a cancelbot on "large" binaries
in non-binary groups (Richard somethingorother). Is that still
happening or did he give that up?

I run cleanfeed to delete binaries in non-binary groups. However it
hasn't been updated in a while, so I don't think it woks on yenc.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My
opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a bestseller
that could have been prevented by a good teacher. -- Flannery O'Connor