Blocking Google

Pete

Sorry guys, if this is off topic. But is there a way to block google from
tracking your usenet posts. I don't think there is, and I can't find out by
googling - lol . Please let me know if this is possible. Thanks.

Vanguard

"Pete" <pete@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:f3avbq02e7m@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Sorry guys, if this is off topic. But is there a way to block google
> from tracking your usenet posts. I don't think there is, and I can't
> find out by googling - lol . Please let me know if this is possible.
> Thanks.


Unless you are the admin for an NNTP server, you as the user posting to
that NNTP server have no control over to whom that NNTP server sends its
feeds.

SingaporeWebDesign

Hello,

Use X-No-Archive at the start of all your messages
http://groups-beta.google.com/suppor...y?answer=46487
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive

Note that this will prevent many other services from archiving your message,
including Google Groups.

--
Singapore Website Design
http://www.bootstrike.com/Webdesign/
Singapore Web Hosting
http://www.bootstrike.com/WinXP/faq.html
Windows XP FAQ

"Pete" <pete@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:f3avbq02e7m@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Sorry guys, if this is off topic. But is there a way to block google from
> tracking your usenet posts. I don't think there is, and I can't find out
> by googling - lol . Please let me know if this is possible. Thanks.
>

Ken Blake, MVP

On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:45:05 +0800, "SingaporeWebDesign"
<SingaporeWebDesign_ng2@bootstrike.com> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>Use X-No-Archive at the start of all your messages
>http://groups-beta.google.com/suppor...y?answer=46487
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive



Although many people do this, it isn't generally effective. Yes, it
stops the archiving of your message, but it does nothing to stop the
archiving of any message which *quotes* your post, and there are often
many of those.


"Pete" <pete@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:f3avbq02e7m@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Sorry guys, if this is off topic. But is there a way to block google from
> tracking your usenet posts. I don't think there is, and I can't find out
> by googling - lol . Please let me know if this is possible. Thanks.
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Vanguard

"SingaporeWebDesign" wrote in message
news:OdCuKsCoHHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> Use X-No-Archive at the start of all your messages
> http://groups-beta.google.com/suppor...y?answer=46487
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive
>
> Note that this will prevent many other services from archiving your
> message, including Google Groups.


Anyone that thinks this will eliminate the archiving of their posts is
either ignorant or hoping that no one quotes their post in a reply.
Depending on which group in which you post, there is a good chance that
someone will quote your post in their reply (i.e., you will probably get
a reply) and lazy users don't snip. Since the reply doesn't use the
header (and the pseudo-header will not be the first line in the reply
for your quoted post), your post WILL get archived.

If you don't want your post archived or you believe that it has so
little value that it should disappear in just a week, don't post. Don't
expect any X-<something> header to be honored by a particular NNTP
server. Those are non-standard headers that may only be defined by a
particular provider. Just because your NNTP provider honors the header
doesn't mean that others do, and because they feed to each other to
propagate your post worldwide and because there are many users that
compile their own archives then your message will be stored somewhere.

Poprivet

Vanguard wrote:
> "SingaporeWebDesign" wrote in message
> news:OdCuKsCoHHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Use X-No-Archive at the start of all your messages
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/suppor...y?answer=46487
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive
>>
>> Note that this will prevent many other services from archiving your
>> message, including Google Groups.
>
>
> Anyone that thinks this will eliminate the archiving of their posts is
> either ignorant or hoping that no one quotes their post in a reply.
> Depending on which group in which you post, there is a good chance
> that someone will quote your post in their reply (i.e., you will
> probably get a reply) and lazy users don't snip. Since the reply
> doesn't use the header (and the pseudo-header will not be the first
> line in the reply for your quoted post), your post WILL get archived.
>
> If you don't want your post archived or you believe that it has so
> little value that it should disappear in just a week, don't post. Don't
> expect any X-<something> header to be honored by a particular
> NNTP server. Those are non-standard headers that may only be defined
> by a particular provider. Just because your NNTP provider honors the
> header doesn't mean that others do, and because they feed to each
> other to propagate your post worldwide and because there are many
> users that compile their own archives then your message will be
> stored somewhere.

You guys seem to be missing the intent of using x-no archive. It's not to
HIDE from anyone, it's to prevent an off topic or less than topical response
from cluttering up the archives. Most places that actually care will honor
the x-line in order to have clean archives and keep the clutter down. In
general there won't be many responses to an x- line like that. Professional
groups in particular find it a very useful tool. So, it's a netiquette
thing, nothing else.

A good example of why I might use that x- line would be if I thought I knew
the poster here and wanted to ask if it was the same person I thought it
was. I'd use x-no archive in that case since it has nothign to do with the
subject of the post and really doesn't belong in the archives. Searchers
wouldn't have to muddle thru it only to discover it had nothing to do with
the matter/s at hand.

Pop`

Ken Blake, MVP

On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:12:04 -0400, "Poprivet"
<poprivet@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:


>You guys seem to be missing the intent of using x-no archive. It's not to
>HIDE from anyone, it's to prevent an off topic or less than topical response
>from cluttering up the archives.


Regardless of what the original intent was, it's most often used today
by people who don't want their postings archived forever. And it
doesn't work for that purpose, as both Vanguard and I pointed out.


> Most places that actually care will honor
>the x-line in order to have clean archives and keep the clutter down. In
>general there won't be many responses to an x- line like that.


In my experience, the number of responses a message gets is unrelated
to whether the x-no archive tag is present. And if you get even a
single response that quotes your message, everything in that quote is
archived forever.



> Professional
>groups in particular find it a very useful tool. So, it's a netiquette
>thing, nothing else.


I don't use Professional groups, but even if you're right, it may have
started as a "netiquette thing," but it's much more than that now.


>A good example of why I might use that x- line would be if I thought I knew
>the poster here and wanted to ask if it was the same person I thought it
>was. I'd use x-no archive in that case since it has nothign to do with the
>subject of the post and really doesn't belong in the archives.



And when you get a reply, unless the replier also includes the x-no
archive tag (unlikely) it end up in the archive where it can be
searched anyway.

I'll refrain from commenting overly on its use in Professional groups,
where I have no experience, but I'll repeat that these days *most*
people don't use it that way, but simply because they don't want the
whole world to be able to read their messages whenever they want. And
for that most common use, it's well-nigh useless.

And, I think very clearly, the OP, who wrote "is there a way to block
Google from tracking your usenet posts" clearly falls into the
category I described, not the one you did.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Pete

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:12:04 -0400, "Poprivet"
> <poprivet@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You guys seem to be missing the intent of using x-no archive. It's
>> not to HIDE from anyone, it's to prevent an off topic or less than
>> topical response from cluttering up the archives.
>
>
> Regardless of what the original intent was, it's most often used today
> by people who don't want their postings archived forever. And it
> doesn't work for that purpose, as both Vanguard and I pointed out.
>
>
>> Most places that actually care will honor
>> the x-line in order to have clean archives and keep the clutter
>> down. In general there won't be many responses to an x- line like
>> that.
>
>
> In my experience, the number of responses a message gets is unrelated
> to whether the x-no archive tag is present. And if you get even a
> single response that quotes your message, everything in that quote is
> archived forever.

Hi Ken...but isn't it archived under the persons logo that responded to your
post, so therefore someone couldn't type your name into a box and have the
message show up (ie they would have to type the persons name who responded
to you, and then your message would show up as a quote in his response), but
that would be random luck for someone to come across my message that way, so
it is much safer or better.

Do you see what I am getting at, or am I all wet. Please read my second
post in the thread also - no one answered it. Maybe because I don't
understand it as good as you guys. In other words if I use x-no-archive,
everytime I write something whether it is an original post by me or a
response to another post, will that prevent my message from showing up when
someone types my logo into the google box...Pete

>
>
>
>> Professional
>> groups in particular find it a very useful tool. So, it's a
>> netiquette thing, nothing else.
>
>
> I don't use Professional groups, but even if you're right, it may have
> started as a "netiquette thing," but it's much more than that now.
>
>
>> A good example of why I might use that x- line would be if I thought
>> I knew the poster here and wanted to ask if it was the same person I
>> thought it was. I'd use x-no archive in that case since it has
>> nothign to do with the subject of the post and really doesn't belong
>> in the archives.
>
>
>
> And when you get a reply, unless the replier also includes the x-no
> archive tag (unlikely) it end up in the archive where it can be
> searched anyway.
>
> I'll refrain from commenting overly on its use in Professional groups,
> where I have no experience, but I'll repeat that these days *most*
> people don't use it that way, but simply because they don't want the
> whole world to be able to read their messages whenever they want. And
> for that most common use, it's well-nigh useless.
>
> And, I think very clearly, the OP, who wrote "is there a way to block
> Google from tracking your usenet posts" clearly falls into the
> category I described, not the one you did.

Ken Blake, MVP

On Sun, 27 May 2007 17:09:50 -0400, "Pete" <pete@nospam.net> wrote:

>Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:12:04 -0400, "Poprivet"
>> <poprivet@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You guys seem to be missing the intent of using x-no archive. It's
>>> not to HIDE from anyone, it's to prevent an off topic or less than
>>> topical response from cluttering up the archives.
>>
>>
>> Regardless of what the original intent was, it's most often used today
>> by people who don't want their postings archived forever. And it
>> doesn't work for that purpose, as both Vanguard and I pointed out.
>>
>>
>>> Most places that actually care will honor
>>> the x-line in order to have clean archives and keep the clutter
>>> down. In general there won't be many responses to an x- line like
>>> that.
>>
>>
>> In my experience, the number of responses a message gets is unrelated
>> to whether the x-no archive tag is present. And if you get even a
>> single response that quotes your message, everything in that quote is
>> archived forever.
>
>Hi Ken...but isn't it archived under the persons logo that responded to your
>post, so therefore someone couldn't type your name into a box and have the
>message show up (ie they would have to type the persons name who responded
>to you, and then your message would show up as a quote in his response), but
>that would be random luck for someone to come across my message that way, so
>it is much safer or better.



I'm not sure what you mean by "safer" or "better." Personally I have
no problem with my messages being archived.

But if you mean harder to find, no that isn't so. If I do a google
newsgroup search for the text string pete@nospam.net with today's
date. I find your message above and the other messages in the thread.
Even if you had begun this message with x-no archive, I would still
find the messages that quoted you, because that address exists as a
text string in the messages (for example, it's in the top line of this
message I'm sending.




>Do you see what I am getting at, or am I all wet. Please read my second
>post in the thread also - no one answered it.


There was no second post here. This was the second post you made in
this thread.



> Maybe because I don't
>understand it as good as you guys. In other words if I use x-no-archive,
>everytime I write something whether it is an original post by me or a
>response to another post, will that prevent my message from showing up when
>someone types my logo into the google box...Pete


Logo? Do you mean E-mail address? You are right only if your address
is typed in the author field, but you are not right if it's typed into
a text field.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Vanguard

"Poprivet" wrote in message
news:eb6jVpIoHHA.4400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> You guys seem to be missing the intent of using x-no archive. It's
> not to HIDE from anyone, it's to prevent an off topic or less than
> topical response from cluttering up the archives.

That is not how the header is being used, however. Some users, as a
default, configure their NNTP client to always insert the header whether
it is relevant or not based on its original intended usage.