what has happened to the moderated group, clcppm?

  • Follow


Nothing has been posted there since 31st August. At least not
according to google groups. Unfortunately I am forced to use google
groups because my ISP has not heard of USENET. I am in the UK where
ISPs that have not heard of USENET are quite common. Maybe it is
problem just with google groups? Any ideas please?

-Andrew Marlow
0
Reply marlow.andrew (156) 9/9/2010 7:52:37 AM

* Andrew, on 09.09.2010 09:52:
> Nothing has been posted there since 31st August. At least not
> according to google groups. Unfortunately I am forced to use google
> groups because my ISP has not heard of USENET. I am in the UK where
> ISPs that have not heard of USENET are quite common. Maybe it is
> problem just with google groups? Any ideas please?

Victor Bazarov posted a notice about that in this group earlier.

We have some problems with the moderation server at Rensellaer Polytechnic. 
Apparently it's been moved to a new machine, which lacks both necessary software 
(inews) and permissions. The short of it is, we're reduced to waiting for our 
server magician, John Potter, to return on the 12th, and hopefully he'll swing 
his magic wand, mumble the requisite magic formulas, sprinkle magic dust, etc., 
whatever it is he does (it's worked on several occasions earlier).


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

-- 
blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
0
Reply Alf 9/9/2010 8:13:31 AM


Andrew wrote:
> Nothing has been posted there since 31st August. At least not
> according to google groups. Unfortunately I am forced to use google
> groups because my ISP has not heard of USENET. I am in the UK where
> ISPs that have not heard of USENET are quite common. Maybe it is
> problem just with google groups? Any ideas please?
> 
> -Andrew Marlow

For what it's worth, my ISP got rid of their newsgroup support recently, 
and I'm now using a public news server (nntp.aioe.org) -- thought you 
might be interested to know that they exist.

Cheers,
Stu
0
Reply Stuart 9/9/2010 11:04:19 AM

2 Replies
191 Views

(page loaded in 0.042 seconds)


Reply: