test X NO ARCHIVE

rosie said:

test

nope. didn't work.

rosie said:

test

Sorry, I didn't know there was going to be a test today so I didn't
study.

x-no-archive: yes

rosie said:

test

Rosie, if you wanted what the subject says, then you need your first
line of your post look like the above. see
http://www.livinginternet.com/u/ua_prev.htm for one source

--

Quoted message said:

<<XX>:> Buddy

rosie said:

test

best done on a test ng.... like

01alt.test

--
See return address to reply by email

sf burped:

Quoted message said:

rosie said:

test

best done on a test ng.... like

01alt.test

You're absolutely right.

--

Quoted message said:

<<XX>:> Buddy

Buddy said:

x-no-archive: yes

rosie said:

test

Rosie, if you wanted what the subject says, then you need your first
line of your post look like the above. see

Or she could use the proper

X-No-Archive: yes

header, rather than cluttering the body of the post.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Blinky the Shark said:

Or she could use the proper

X-No-Archive: yes

header, rather than cluttering the body of the post.

Not possible with groups.google. BTW, IIRC, according to the latest
USEFOR spec, the modern rendition of the header is "Archive: no", but I
have no idea if Google already recognises this header.

Victor

Victor Sack said:

Blinky the Shark said:

Or she could use the proper

X-No-Archive: yes

header, rather than cluttering the body of the post.

Not possible with groups.google. BTW, IIRC, according to the latest

Of course not. I didn't notice a Google Groups poster was involved.

Quoted message said:

USEFOR spec, the modern rendition of the header is "Archive: no", but I

This is the first I've heard of that. Thanks. I will check this out.

Quoted message said:

have no idea if Google already recognises this header.

Probably not. Except for maintaining the archive, Google isn't very
good at newsgroups.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

rosie said:

test

How you expected to accomplish that is a mystery. Especially
since you're posting from Google.

-sw

Blinky the Shark said:

Probably not. Except for maintaining the archive, Google isn't very
good at newsgroups.

Google doesn't even understand "X-No-Archive: no". When will
they learn that "no" means "no"?

-sw

"Victor Sack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Blinky the Shark said:

Or she could use the proper

X-No-Archive: yes

header, rather than cluttering the body of the post.

Not possible with groups.google. BTW, IIRC, according to the latest
USEFOR spec, the modern rendition of the header is "Archive: no", but I
have no idea if Google already recognises this header.

Victor

Here is the Google Groups Help Center link for X-No-Archive:

http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46487&topic=9253

Quoted post said:

I don't want you to archive my articles! How can I keep my messages from
being archived on Google Groups?

Any post that contains the text "X-No-Archive:" either in the message
headers of their post or as the very first text in the first line of the
message body will be displayed on Google Groups for only seven days and
won't be searchable after it's removed.

That said, the odds of someone replying to and quoting an X-No-Archive post
(in whole or in part) within seven days are very high in a newsgroup with
Medium to High activity. Also, if the person replying to an X-No-Archive
post doesn't use X-No-Archive, then the portions of the post they are
quoting when replying are de-facto archived within the reply.

Blinky the Shark said:

Victor Sack wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not possible with groups.google. BTW, IIRC, according to the latest

Of course not. I didn't notice a Google Groups poster was involved.

I set my newsreader to display the User-Agent header line in posts, so
when I see:

User-Agent: G2/1.0

I know I'm dealing with a GG person and can tailor my reply for their .
.. . "limitations".

Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User said:

Blinky the Shark said:

Victor Sack wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not possible with groups.google. BTW, IIRC, according to the latest

Of course not. I didn't notice a Google Groups poster was involved.

I set my newsreader to display the User-Agent header line in posts, so
when I see:

User-Agent: G2/1.0

I know I'm dealing with a GG person and can tailor my reply for their .
. . "limitations".

I have a different approach. It's noted in my sig.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

On 7 May 2007 05:35:57 GMT, "Default User" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Blinky the Shark said:

Victor Sack wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not possible with groups.google. BTW, IIRC, according to the latest

Of course not. I didn't notice a Google Groups poster was involved.

I set my newsreader to display the User-Agent header line in posts, so
when I see:

User-Agent: G2/1.0

I know I'm dealing with a GG person and can tailor my reply for their .
. . "limitations".

What sort of tailoring do you do?

--
See return address to reply by email

On 7 May 2007 05:53:11 GMT, Blinky the Shark <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Default User said:

Blinky the Shark said:

Victor Sack wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Not possible with groups.google. BTW, IIRC, according to the latest

Of course not. I didn't notice a Google Groups poster was involved.

I set my newsreader to display the User-Agent header line in posts, so
when I see:

User-Agent: G2/1.0

I know I'm dealing with a GG person and can tailor my reply for their .
. . "limitations".

I have a different approach. It's noted in my sig.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Yes, I know.... but not everyone who posts from google is a noobie.
For instance, I'd rather not redownload days worth of headers just to
find one. So I'll post from there (sometimes) if a deleted thread
takes a turn toward interesting again.

I'm not offended if you choose not to read GG. Just giving you a
heads up.

--
See return address to reply by email

sf said:

On 7 May 2007 05:35:57 GMT, "Default User" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Blinky the Shark said:

Victor Sack wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Not possible with groups.google. BTW, IIRC, according to the

latest >>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course not. I didn't notice a Google Groups poster was

involved.

Quoted message said:

I set my newsreader to display the User-Agent header line in posts,
so when I see:

User-Agent: G2/1.0

I know I'm dealing with a GG person and can tailor my reply for
their . . . "limitations".

What sort of tailoring do you do?

I don't suggest killfiles, for instance, or if I do I explain that a
browser plugin is needed.

Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On 7 May 2007 00:54:25 GMT, Blinky the Shark <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Victor Sack said:

Blinky the Shark said:

Or she could use the proper

X-No-Archive: yes

header, rather than cluttering the body of the post.

Not possible with groups.google. BTW, IIRC, according to the latest

Of course not. I didn't notice a Google Groups poster was involved.

Quoted message said:

USEFOR spec, the modern rendition of the header is "Archive: no", but I

This is the first I've heard of that. Thanks. I will check this out.

Quoted message said:

have no idea if Google already recognises this header.

Probably not. Except for maintaining the archive, Google isn't very
good at newsgroups.

but you gotta admit, the archive is the balls.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy said:

On 7 May 2007 00:54:25 GMT, Blinky the Shark <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Victor Sack said:

Blinky the Shark <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Or she could use the proper
>
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> header, rather than cluttering the body of the post.

Not possible with groups.google. BTW, IIRC, according to the

latest

Quoted message said:

Of course not. I didn't notice a Google Groups poster was involved.

Quoted message said:

USEFOR spec, the modern rendition of the header is "Archive: no",

but I

Quoted message said:

This is the first I've heard of that. Thanks. I will check this
out.

Quoted message said:

have no idea if Google already recognises this header.

Probably not. Except for maintaining the archive, Google isn't very
good at newsgroups.

but you gotta admit, the archive is the balls.

Better than nothing, but things that used to be in the archive have
been disappearing. I'm not sure what the reason is for that.

Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Blinky the Shark so bravely stated:

Quoted message said:

Buddy said:

x-no-archive: yes

rosie said:

test

Rosie, if you wanted what the subject says, then you need your first
line of your post look like the above. see

Or she could use the proper

X-No-Archive: yes

header, rather than cluttering the body of the post.

I know that my newsreader will handle headers easily, but it took me
some time to determine how to set it up in Thunderbird. And if I want to
be archived, then I have to change my user.js file. So inserting
X-No-Archive: yes into the first line of a post is the easiest method to
selectively archive or not.

Can you even set headers in IE?

--

Quoted message said:

<<XX>:> Buddy