From: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm


=====================================================================
Multiposting vs Crossposting
=====================================================================


Multiposting vs Crossposting

by David Stevenson

The question was asked:
What's the difference between multi-posting and cross-posting?


Suppose you decide to post an article telling people of a useful cat
thing around the house. You might decide that people would like to read
that on rec.pets.cats.misc, also on alt.cats and alt.animals.felines.

If you prepare an article, and send it out three times, once to each
group, then people like myself who take each group will download it
three times, and come across it three times as an Unread article.
Annoying, and an unnecessary cost [outside the USA most of us pay per
second of downloading time]. That is multi-posting.

Alternatively, you could send it out once, and in the Newsgroups line
you could put: rec.pets.cats.misc,alt.cats,alt.animals.felines

It will now only be downloaded once [assuming reasonable software]. It
will appear in each group, and once it has been read any one group, it
will be marked as read in all of them. That is cross-posting.

Cross-posting is often wrong, because people tend to cross-post to
unsuitable groups. For example, if your cat has a medical problem, it
may be reasonable to cross-post to rec.pets.cats.health+behav and
alt.cats and alt.animals.felines because the latter two groups are
general cat groups, and someone there may be able to help: but it is not
reasonable to cross-post to rec.pets.cats.misc or
rec.pets.cats.anecdotes because these groups are for different things. 

However cross-posting is right some of the time.

Multi-posting is a waste of bandwidth, money, and people's time, with no
advantages whatever, and should never be indulged in.

Please, only cross-post if you are sure your article is suitable for the
different newsgroups; never multi-post.

"Corey Richardson"  ha scritto nel messaggio news

Fine, you've found someone who lets you think your questions are important 
to all of us around the world.  OTH, many have asked you to desist.  You 
won't.  So you will end up in everyone's killfile.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:09:23 +0200, "Giusi" 
wrote:

>"Corey Richardson"  ha scritto nel messaggio news
>
>Fine, you've found someone who lets you think your questions are important 
>to all of us around the world.

More nastiness from you. 

My, or anyone else's, opinions and questions are as valid as yours are
Giusi.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:09:23 +0200, "Giusi" 
wrote:

>"Corey Richardson"  ha scritto nel messaggio news
>
>Fine, you've found someone

Oh, and it wasn't difficult to find.

Here's another one:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

"Corey Richardson"  wrote in message 
news:jdr8a4l2puppf8fptoo87cgfdflv3rrbnd@4ax.com...
> From: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
>
>
> =====================================================================
> Multiposting vs Crossposting
> =====================================================================
>
>
> Multiposting vs Crossposting
>
> by David Stevenson
>
> The question was asked:
> What's the difference between multi-posting and cross-posting?
>
>
> Suppose you decide to post an article telling people of a useful cat
> thing around the house. You might decide that people would like to read
> that on rec.pets.cats.misc, also on alt.cats and alt.animals.felines.
>
> If you prepare an article, and send it out three times, once to each
> group, then people like myself who take each group will download it
> three times, and come across it three times as an Unread article.
> Annoying, and an unnecessary cost [outside the USA most of us pay per
> second of downloading time]. That is multi-posting.
>
> Alternatively, you could send it out once, and in the Newsgroups line
> you could put: rec.pets.cats.misc,alt.cats,alt.animals.felines
>
> It will now only be downloaded once [assuming reasonable software]. It
> will appear in each group, and once it has been read any one group, it
> will be marked as read in all of them. That is cross-posting.
>

No it won't!  It'll be downloaded 3 effing times!!

On the Demon site they discuss multi-posting.  Their bots notice if it goes 
to 20 or more groups and they consider that  SPAMMING!!!!!

So!  FFS STOP X-POSTING!

Giusi wrote:
> "Corey Richardson"  ha scritto nel
> messaggio news
> Fine, you've found someone who lets you think your questions are
> important to all of us around the world.  OTH, many have asked you to
> desist.  You won't.  So you will end up in everyone's killfile.

Well, he is in mine.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:04:53 GMT, "Graham"  wrote:


>> It will now only be downloaded once [assuming reasonable software]. It
>> will appear in each group, and once it has been read any one group, it
>> will be marked as read in all of them. That is cross-posting.
>>
>
>No it won't!  It'll be downloaded 3 effing times!!

A decent newsreader will download it only once!

>On the Demon site they discuss multi-posting.  Their bots notice if it goes 
>to 20 or more groups and they consider that  SPAMMING!!!!!

Yes, that's another reason why multi-posting is bad!

In message , Corey 
Richardson  writes
>On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:09:23 +0200, "Giusi" 
>wrote:
>
>>"Corey Richardson"  ha scritto nel messaggio news
>>
>>Fine, you've found someone who lets you think your questions are important
>>to all of us around the world.
>
>More nastiness from you.
>
>My, or anyone else's, opinions and questions are as valid as yours are
>Giusi.
>
I have never found Judith to be nasty.  OTOH, she has always been 
pleasant here.  Perhaps you would like to follow her example?

PS  We try to avoid cross-posting here.  Those of us who wish to 
subscribe to rec.food.cooking already do so.

PPS  Cross-posting removed.
-- 
June Hughes

In message , Ophelia 
<Opheilia@nix.?.uk.invalid> writes
>Giusi wrote:
>> "Corey Richardson"  ha scritto nel
>> messaggio news
>> Fine, you've found someone who lets you think your questions are
>> important to all of us around the world.  OTH, many have asked you to
>> desist.  You won't.  So you will end up in everyone's killfile.
>
>Well, he is in mine.
>
>
What a good idea.  Why didn't I think of that?

PS  I assumed Corey was a woman's name, so apols on that score. 
Otherwise I shall follow your example.
-- 
June Hughes

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:04:06 +0100, "Ophelia" <Opheilia@nix,co.uk>
wrote:

>Giusi wrote:
>> "Corey Richardson"  ha scritto nel
>> messaggio news
>> Fine, you've found someone who lets you think your questions are
>> important to all of us around the world.  OTH, many have asked you to
>> desist.  You won't.  So you will end up in everyone's killfile.
>
>Well, he is in mine. 

As you wish Ophelia. I think I've posted on more on-topic subjects than
you in the past week though.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
 wrote:

>In message , Corey 
>Richardson  writes
>>On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:09:23 +0200, "Giusi" 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Corey Richardson"  ha scritto nel messaggio news
>>>
>>>Fine, you've found someone who lets you think your questions are important
>>>to all of us around the world.
>>
>>More nastiness from you.
>>
>>My, or anyone else's, opinions and questions are as valid as yours are
>>Giusi.
>>
>I have never found Judith to be nasty.  OTOH, she has always been 
>pleasant here.  

>Perhaps you would like to follow her example?

Perhaps you could show where I've been unpleasant to someone?

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
 wrote:

>PS  We try to avoid cross-posting here.  Those of us who wish to 
>subscribe to rec.food.cooking already do so.

PS I'm interested in both group's opinions and answers. 

You want me to break usenet convention and my NSP's TOS and multi-post?

"Corey Richardson"  wrote in message 
news:mr99a49geo24cnbe71qu3773usnpj00moc@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
>  wrote:
>
>>PS  We try to avoid cross-posting here.  Those of us who wish to
>>subscribe to rec.food.cooking already do so.
>
> PS I'm interested in both group's opinions and answers.
>
> You want me to break usenet convention and my NSP's TOS and multi-post?
>
But you won't be!!
Multi-posting on your scale is OK.  The multi-posting that gets everyones 
knickers in a twist is called spamming!!

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:04:33 GMT, "Graham"  wrote:

>
>"Corey Richardson"  wrote in message 
>news:mr99a49geo24cnbe71qu3773usnpj00moc@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
>>  wrote:
>>
>> You want me to break usenet convention and my NSP's TOS and multi-post?
>>
>But you won't be!!
>Multi-posting on your scale is OK.  The multi-posting that gets everyones 
>knickers in a twist is called spamming!! 

People *really* don't seem to realise just how bad multi-posting is and
that there's never a reason why it should *ever be done.

[and yes, this is crossposted to rec.food.cooking for clarity in both
groups]

Please *everyone* read this!

Quote http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

"You might compose a message, using your favorite program, and post it
to one group. Then you could, depending on the program you use, just
edit the line that contains the group name and repost, or use some other
method of sending messages with identical content as separate postings.
This means multiposting: several copies of the text are sent, as
separate messages, within different message identifiers and with no
connection to each other as far as the Usenet techniques and protocols
are considered. This is the completely wrong way. (Well, perhaps there
is no perfection in madness. You could also use different headings to
confuse things more, or you could type the message copies by hand so
that they use different formulations.) To begin with, it's more awkward
to you than crossposting. More seriously, it will disrupt the discussion
on Usenet, such as answers to your questions and comments on those
answers.

Let's assume that you post a question to two groups, say alt.html and
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html (c.i.w.a.h.), as separate postings.
Let's optimistically assume that the question is really on-topic for
both groups (in our example, that the question is about HTML authoring
for the WWW).

First, to see all answers, you need to check what will be posted to both
groups. More work for you.

Crossposting is easier than sending separate postings. You don't really
need any other reason. The following discusssion is here to tell you why
failure to crosspost really disturbs people.

Most readers of the two groups probably read only one of them. (This is
particularly true for very active groups like those I have chosen as
examples.) If I read c.i.w.a.h. only, I will see your question but not
those answers that have been sent to your identical message in alt.html.
This is especially harmful if the answers sent to the group I read are
all wrong but some answers in the other group aren't. And people will
spend their time in trying to find answers to your question, after
seeing that it still remains unanswered, without knowing that someone
took great effort and solved your problem - in another group.

Everyone who reads both groups will see your article twice, with no
obvious indication of seeing something they had already seen. If you
used crossposting, most newsreaders would show the article once only to
each reader (and even people using other newsreaders would be able to
easily see that it's a crossposted article). Don't you think such
repetition will make communication more effective!

And people who read both groups will get pissed off when they see, after
taking the trouble of answering your question in one group, that an
identical question had been sent to another group. There's little one
can do then. One could post a followup message to the other group,
including a copy of the answer or a reference to it, but in addition to
being extra traffic that could have been avoided, it really does not
solve the problem. The two replies are distinct articles, and any
comments to them will go to the respective groups. Using Followup-To
fields referring to both groups could cause more harm than do any good.
In any case, there is no way to bring two threads together once the
mistake has been made by sending a message to several groups without
crossposting."

Corey Richardson wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:04:33 GMT, "Graham"  wrote:
> 
>>
>>"Corey Richardson"  wrote in message 
>>news:mr99a49geo24cnbe71qu3773usnpj00moc@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> You want me to break usenet convention and my NSP's TOS and multi-post?
>>>
>>But you won't be!!
>>Multi-posting on your scale is OK.  The multi-posting that gets everyones 
>>knickers in a twist is called spamming!! 
> 
> People *really* don't seem to realise just how bad multi-posting is and
> that there's never a reason why it should *ever be done.
> 
> [and yes, this is crossposted to rec.food.cooking for clarity in both
> groups]

Many don't even understand that crossposting and multiposting are
different practices...


-- 
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed?  http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:10:01 -0700, Blinky the Shark
<no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:

>Corey Richardson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:04:33 GMT, "Graham"  wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>>"Corey Richardson"  wrote in message 
>>>news:mr99a49geo24cnbe71qu3773usnpj00moc@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You want me to break usenet convention and my NSP's TOS and multi-post?
>>>>
>>>But you won't be!!
>>>Multi-posting on your scale is OK.  The multi-posting that gets everyones 
>>>knickers in a twist is called spamming!! 
>> 
>> People *really* don't seem to realise just how bad multi-posting is and
>> that there's never a reason why it should *ever be done.
>> 
>> [and yes, this is crossposted to rec.food.cooking for clarity in both
>> groups]
>
>Many don't even understand that crossposting and multiposting are
>different practices...

Maybe if they took a little time out for usenet education...

It's no wonder usenet is dying, Blinky :(

Corey Richardson wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:10:01 -0700, Blinky the Shark
> <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>Corey Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:04:33 GMT, "Graham"  wrote:
>>> 
>>>>
>>>>"Corey Richardson"  wrote in message 
>>>>news:mr99a49geo24cnbe71qu3773usnpj00moc@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You want me to break usenet convention and my NSP's TOS and multi-post?
>>>>>
>>>>But you won't be!!
>>>>Multi-posting on your scale is OK.  The multi-posting that gets everyones 
>>>>knickers in a twist is called spamming!! 
>>> 
>>> People *really* don't seem to realise just how bad multi-posting is and
>>> that there's never a reason why it should *ever be done.
>>> 
>>> [and yes, this is crossposted to rec.food.cooking for clarity in both
>>> groups]
>>
>>Many don't even understand that crossposting and multiposting are
>>different practices...
> 
> Maybe if they took a little time out for usenet education...
> 
> It's no wonder usenet is dying, Blinky :(

The web interfaces contribute significantly to that.

http://howardk.freenix.org/msgid.cgi?ID=120829004500

And, of course, the first link in my sig (which also links to that page).


-- 
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed?  http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:28:32 -0700, Blinky the Shark
<no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:

>Corey Richardson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:10:01 -0700, Blinky the Shark
>> <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>Corey Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:04:33 GMT, "Graham"  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>"Corey Richardson"  wrote in message 
>>>>>news:mr99a49geo24cnbe71qu3773usnpj00moc@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:42 +0100, June Hughes
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You want me to break usenet convention and my NSP's TOS and multi-post?
>>>>>>
>>>>>But you won't be!!
>>>>>Multi-posting on your scale is OK.  The multi-posting that gets everyones 
>>>>>knickers in a twist is called spamming!! 
>>>> 
>>>> People *really* don't seem to realise just how bad multi-posting is and
>>>> that there's never a reason why it should *ever be done.
>>>> 
>>>> [and yes, this is crossposted to rec.food.cooking for clarity in both
>>>> groups]
>>>
>>>Many don't even understand that crossposting and multiposting are
>>>different practices...
>> 
>> Maybe if they took a little time out for usenet education...
>> 
>> It's no wonder usenet is dying, Blinky :(
>
>The web interfaces contribute significantly to that.
>
>http://howardk.freenix.org/msgid.cgi?ID=120829004500
>
>And, of course, the first link in my sig (which also links to that page).

I've read that many times before and I totally agree. Google groups are
yet another example of people who do not know how to use usenet
properly.

But, it's often amazing that many of those who demand multi-posting over
valid, on-topic, cross-posting aren't Google group users...

Whoever told them that multi-posting was preferable and that on-topic
x-posting was wrong should be shot for usenet misinformation, IMHO.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:04:53 GMT, "Graham"  wrote:

>No it won't!  It'll be downloaded 3 effing times!!

No, *only* if it's multi-posted will it be downloaded three times!

There's a real, on-topic, and valid reason for cross-posting.

There's *never* a valid reason for multi-posting!

"Graham"  ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:pl%ok.182789$gc5.36623@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Corey Richardson"  wrote in message
>> The question was asked:
>> What's the difference between multi-posting and cross-posting?
>
I never asked this question.  Did anyone else here ask this question?

>> It will now only be downloaded once [assuming reasonable software]. It
>> will appear in each group, and once it has been read any one group, it
>> will be marked as read in all of them. That is cross-posting.
>>
>
> No it won't!  It'll be downloaded 3 effing times!!

Exactly.  Every inane post this person has made has been downloaded multiple 
times and every list of responders is pockmarked with bold when people have 
un-crossed the posting.  He believes it is his right to arrive and 
immediately alter the group and the experience of everyone in the group, and 
if you disagree and point out to him that he is making himself terminally 
unpopular, he says you are being nasty.

>
> So!  FFS STOP X-POSTING!

Reasonable query doesn't work, I expect this won't either.

In message , Giusi 
 writes
>"Graham"  ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:pl%ok.182789$gc5.36623@pd7urf2no...
>>
>> "Corey Richardson"  wrote in message
>>> The question was asked:
>>> What's the difference between multi-posting and cross-posting?
>>
>I never asked this question.  Did anyone else here ask this question?
>
>>> It will now only be downloaded once [assuming reasonable software]. It
>>> will appear in each group, and once it has been read any one group, it
>>> will be marked as read in all of them. That is cross-posting.
>>>
>>
>> No it won't!  It'll be downloaded 3 effing times!!
>
>Exactly.  Every inane post this person has made has been downloaded multiple
>times and every list of responders is pockmarked with bold when people have
>un-crossed the posting.  He believes it is his right to arrive and
>immediately alter the group and the experience of everyone in the group, and
>if you disagree and point out to him that he is making himself terminally
>unpopular, he says you are being nasty.
>
>>
>> So!  FFS STOP X-POSTING!
>
>Reasonable query doesn't work, I expect this won't either.
>
>
I think the only thing to do is kill-file him.
-- 
June Hughes

June Hughes said 

> I have never found Judith to be nasty.  OTOH, she has always been 
> pleasant here.  Perhaps you would like to follow her example?

Can he be as dense as hes pretending to be? Its very clear hes generating
lots of wasted bandwidth incessant xposts, not saving it, as he laughably
claims................ 
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Graham said 

> So!  FFS STOP X-POSTING!

I don't know for sure if he's a naive who thinks he's an expert or a troll
but "!ignore" in 40tude should work a treat for his inane threads. 
Fiddling with 40tudes killfile is an end in itself! 
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

"Mike ............"  wrote in message 
news:ntls5ku3qom7$.19hcxgg4uca4d.dlg@40tude.net...
> Graham said
>
>> So!  FFS STOP X-POSTING!
>
> I don't know for sure if he's a naive who thinks he's an expert or a troll
> but "!ignore" in 40tude should work a treat for his inane threads.
> Fiddling with 40tudes killfile is an end in itself!
> -- 
I've certainly found that!  The instructions appear to have been written by 
someone with a knowledge of computerese but not plain English as she is 
spoke!
Graham

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:41:58 +0100, "Mike ............"
 wrote:

>June Hughes said 
>
>> I have never found Judith to be nasty.  OTOH, she has always been 
>> pleasant here.  Perhaps you would like to follow her example?
>
>Can he be as dense as hes pretending to be? Its very clear hes generating
>lots of wasted bandwidth incessant xposts, not saving it, as he laughably
>claims................ 

You're wrong, crossposting saves bandwidth over multi-posting.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:21:51 +0200, "Giusi" 
wrote:

>"Graham"  ha scritto nel messaggio 
>news:pl%ok.182789$gc5.36623@pd7urf2no...
>>
>> "Corey Richardson"  wrote in message
>>> The question was asked:
>>> What's the difference between multi-posting and cross-posting?
>>
>I never asked this question.  Did anyone else here ask this question?
>
>>> It will now only be downloaded once [assuming reasonable software]. It
>>> will appear in each group, and once it has been read any one group, it
>>> will be marked as read in all of them. That is cross-posting.
>>>
>>
>> No it won't!  It'll be downloaded 3 effing times!!
>
>Exactly.

No it won't.

>Every inane post

>he says you are being nasty.

So that's not nasty?