| Max Hauser |
"cherie" in news:1402f7f8.0403091255.2361a11c@posting.google.com...
> "Max Hauser" in news:<104nosp7t7f45a3@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> >
> > (By the way cherie if you are using Google to see current postings, as
> > distinct from using its excellent archives, just in case you are unaware
of
> > this, Google's display of recent postings can lag by several hours, as
its
> > instructions explain. Other conduits to these same newsgroups,
unrelated to
> > Google, will show you a more current picture. ...
>
> Max, I have used the archives a few times to see if postings exist on
> this or that, but I have mostly just using Google's display of recent
> postings. I know they lag several hours, but I do not know of another
> way. Help?
I am no expert on this subject and this may be my last comment on it because
it is perennial, and specialized newsgroups like this one are also poor
places for generic questions about newsgroups. It seems though that most
tools for browsing or reading mail have a "read news" tool; you need only go
through a self-service set-up process similar to what you do with a mail
account. Internet Explorer (tm), say what you all will about it, has a
decent little news reader (under "Tools"), that's one of the ones I use.
(Such readers, by the way, long predate the "WWW" interfaces to the
Internet. It is the "Web pages" that are relatively new.) You will need
access to a "news server," perhaps via your ISP or email provider. MUCH
MUCH more information and help and advice will be available from whatever
local resources you use for other computer set-up and failing that, you can
probably find out most of what you would need by patient perusal of
newsgroups and their archives online. (Separating the customary newsgroup
dross and armchair expertise will be a valuable further introduction to
newsgroups.) WWW searches for "Internet History" may give you some useful
background but as with other factual subjects they also return
authoritative-looking misinformation and nonsense often merely copied from
other uninformed sources, with extra distortions added for finesse. And if
by any chance you haven't already, please get to know the very useful
RFC1855 guideline (you can search for it by any search engine), maybe the
original introductory document for text communication by Internet (updated
much later, 1995), though if I am mistaken on that point, I will likely be
corrected (and possibly even if not). Best wishes -- Max
|
|
|
|
