OT computer query
 

Can anyone tell me how to X-no archive posts, please? I use a Mac System X
but I suppose it might not be possible at all!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Sacha wrote:
Can anyone tell me how to X-no archive posts, please? I use a Mac
System X but I suppose it might not be possible at all!

http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html#prevent

I do not want you to archive my article(s)! How can I prevent messages that
I post from being archived on Google Groups?
Google supports the 'X-No-archive: yes' header, and we will not archive any
articles that contain this text either in the header or in the first line of
the message body.



pk

Janet Baraclough wrote:
The message
from Sacha contains these words:

Can anyone tell me how to X-no archive posts, please? I use a Mac
System X but I suppose it might not be possible at all!

On my newsreader, I go into "main page" and open "options"..the
bit
where you can set your sig, etc, and just tick the box marked "set
x-no-archive".

Btw, gardenbanter's webmaster has now decided to honour
X-no-archive posts from newsgroups..about time too.

Tragically, it completely deprives his website of my urg replies
to
gardenbanter posts and questions. One fears for gardenbanter's
survival should x-no archive become widespread on their favourite
"forum and bulletin board".

As a matter of interest, and without any critical intent, why do some
people like to keep their messages out of the archive? Nothing much I
say is worth looking up, but I don't feel a particular need to
suppress my remarks. Is it just privacy, or is there some other
advantage I haven't thought of?

--
Mike.

In article ,
"Mike Lyle" writes:
|
| As a matter of interest, and without any critical intent, why do some
| people like to keep their messages out of the archive? Nothing much I
| say is worth looking up, but I don't feel a particular need to
| suppress my remarks. Is it just privacy, or is there some other
| advantage I haven't thought of?

It clearly isn't privacy, as posts are not private. It is used by
trolls to prevent people pointing out their inconsistencies, but I
don't know of another use.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Lyle" writes:

As a matter of interest, and without any critical intent, why do
some people like to keep their messages out of the archive? Nothing
much I say is worth looking up, but I don't feel a particular need
to suppress my remarks. Is it just privacy, or is there some other
advantage I haven't thought of?

It clearly isn't privacy, as posts are not private. It is used by
trolls to prevent people pointing out their inconsistencies, but I
don't know of another use.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

http://livinginternet.com/u/ua_prev.htm
Summary: You can prevent most Usenet archives from recording your newsgroup
postings.

Remember that newsgroup archives save all messages on the Usenet, and other
people will be able to retrieve your postings months and years later. You
may not want this to happen for a couple of different reasons:

a.. Time. Your message is an informational type with a short time span of
interest, like a notice for a weekly seminar, and doesn't add any long term
value to the Usenet.
a.. Personal. You are discussing sensitive or personal subjects, or you
have other privacy reasons.
pk

In article ,
"p.k." writes:
|
| It clearly isn't privacy, as posts are not private. It is used by
| trolls to prevent people pointing out their inconsistencies, but I
| don't know of another use.
|
| http://livinginternet.com/u/ua_prev.htm

At a brief glance, that site looks amusing, informative but not
necessarily accurate.

| a.. Time. Your message is an informational type with a short time span of
| interest, like a notice for a weekly seminar, and doesn't add any long term
| value to the Usenet.

Actually, looking at such things years later can be useful, and
marking those no archive might reduce the volume by - oh - 0.1%
Gee.

| a.. Personal. You are discussing sensitive or personal subjects, or you
| have other privacy reasons.

D'oh! The author of that was clearly having a blond moment. Do I
really need to explain why?


In article ,
writes:
|
| Some use it to try to stop employers from checking how many posts are
| made by staff during working hours.

Now, THAT makes sense.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

|
| Some use it to try to stop employers from checking how many posts are
| made by staff during working hours.

Now, THAT makes sense.


:-))

My word yes, as some have discovered by making many, many, many public
postings.

:-))

Mike

Nick Maclaren wrote:

a.. Personal. You are discussing sensitive or personal subjects,
or you have other privacy reasons.

D'oh! The author of that was clearly having a blond moment. Do I
really need to explain why?

I can certainly see occasions when some insult is thrown around in a flame
war when someone might want to reply with both barrels but not want the post
to live on to be resurrected out of context in the future.

There are certainly some rather ratty and crabby missiles from me lurking in
the ether...........

Not quite such a blond moment?


pk

In article ,
"p.k." writes:
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
|
| a.. Personal. You are discussing sensitive or personal subjects,
| or you have other privacy reasons.
|
| D'oh! The author of that was clearly having a blond moment. Do I
| really need to explain why?
|
| I can certainly see occasions when some insult is thrown around in a flame
| war when someone might want to reply with both barrels but not want the post
| to live on to be resurrected out of context in the future.
|
| There are certainly some rather ratty and crabby missiles from me lurking in
| the ether...........
|
| Not quite such a blond moment?

You mean that you are aware that you might regret being quoted
in advance, so add the flag, and still post? That is so blond
as to not realise that blond is a hair colour!

Some archivers don't take any notice of that flag, it is a
configuration parameter how long local feeds keep postings (and
can be indefinite), some feeds archive their data, and it is
always possible for any reader to archive a newsgroup. Plus,
of course, the spooks probably record everything.

Sorry, but ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
[...] That is so blond
as to not realise that blond is a hair colour!
[...]
It is? I thought it was that French bloke who tight-roped across
Niagara Falls.
No, no, of course not! It was that rapper who got the king sprung
from the nick.

--
Mike.

On 12/4/05 1:51 pm, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:


In article ,
"Mike Lyle" writes:
|
| As a matter of interest, and without any critical intent, why do some
| people like to keep their messages out of the archive? Nothing much I
| say is worth looking up, but I don't feel a particular need to
| suppress my remarks. Is it just privacy, or is there some other
| advantage I haven't thought of?

It clearly isn't privacy, as posts are not private. It is used by
trolls to prevent people pointing out their inconsistencies, but I
don't know of another use.

In the past and not on this group, I have a lot of unpleasant experience of
someone who used to dig back into archives, find other peoples' posts, paste
and copy them but with a word or sentence or two tweaked here and there, so
as to alter the meaning totally. Other posters took all this as gospel
truth because they couldn't be bothered to do the same 'research'.

--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

In article ,
writes:
|
| When it happened to me I received no such request. Even worse my
| answer to some ones problem was printed as if I had asked the question
| and the magazine's so called expert had answered it.

With your name? Boggle. I suffer from this sort of abuse, too,
including with my various work hats on, but don't worry about it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Sacha wrote:
On 12/4/05 1:51 pm, in article ,
"Nick Maclaren" wrote:


In article ,
"Mike Lyle" writes:

As a matter of interest, and without any critical intent, why do
some people like to keep their messages out of the archive?
Nothing much I say is worth looking up, but I don't feel a
particular need to suppress my remarks. Is it just privacy, or is
there some other advantage I haven't thought of?

It clearly isn't privacy, as posts are not private. It is used by
trolls to prevent people pointing out their inconsistencies, but I
don't know of another use.

In the past and not on this group, I have a lot of unpleasant
experience of someone who used to dig back into archives, find other
peoples' posts, paste and copy them but with a word or sentence or
two tweaked here and there, so as to alter the meaning totally.
Other posters took all this as gospel truth because they couldn't be
bothered to do the same 'research'.

What no one has yet mentioned is that any *reply* to an x no archive
post which includes the original will autometically put it back into
the archive!

btw; Hi All, just popped in to see about weedkiller and found that
someone had asked my question yesterday afternoon and it had an
answer, too. I want to use Roundup on one of my summer bedding
beds to clear perennial weeds including those tiny white flowered
ones which are out at the moment. I've got four weeks to let it
clear and dissipate.


--
Graham W http://www.gcw.org.uk/ PGM-FI page updated, Graphics Tutorial
WIMBORNE http://www.wessex-astro-society.freeserve.co.uk/ Wessex
Dorset UK Astro Society's Web pages, Info, Meeting Dates, Sites & Maps
Change 'news' to 'sewn' in my Reply address to avoid my spam filter.

I thought most companies nowadays log all their employees'
internal, incoming and outgoing computer traffic?

Janet.


:-)))

"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
Can anyone tell me how to X-no archive posts, please? I use a Mac System
X
but I suppose it might not be possible at all!


Waste of time. If your post is interesting (or annoying) enough for someone
else to reply to, then your original message will be archived within the
body of their post, whether or not the original is archived. This would also
apply to subsequent replies if it wasnt snipped from those either.
--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com