Lavasoft Adaware
 

Does anyone know if they are having a problem with their definition
update server?

gary

Re: Lavasoft Adaware
 

In article <%IxOh.18803$Jl.12119@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
gareth@capecod.net says...

> Does anyone know if they are having a problem with their definition
> update server?

No problem here, but please, if you wish to post to more than one group,
cross-post correctly.

Re: Lavasoft Adaware
 

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:10:04 +0100, Tx2
<this.is.an.inv@lid.address.u.know.com> wrote:

>but please, if you wish to post to more than one group,
>cross-post correctly.

The correct way to crosspost/multipost is not an open and shut case. I
see many groups where people tell others to multipost and other groups
where they are told to crosspost. I guess it depends on the
individuals' preference. Personally, I tend to post in just one group
and wait a couple days for a reply. If none, it's off to a different
group.

--
Zilbandy

Re: Lavasoft Adaware
 

In article <vlcl035c64m3l0pjm3l03uvj58vj8nrmha@4ax.com>,
zil@zilbandyREMOVETHIS.com says...


> The correct way to crosspost/multipost is not an open and shut case.

I cite a 'popular' source for your perusal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

and then see the section "Etiquette" at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_posting

There are others. A Google search will provide references.

> I see many groups where people tell others to multipost and other groups
> where they are told to crosspost. I guess it depends on the
> individuals' preference.

Usenet is not based on "individual preference", it is based on a set of
suggested guidelines that have been tried and tested in excess of 2
decades. Unfortunately, there are those who wish to do things 'their
way', which breaks the 'system' somewhat.

> Personally, I tend to post in just one group and wait a couple days
> for a reply. If none, it's off to a different group.

The exact same message was posted to at least 2 groups I use, more or
less at the same time which is clearly multi-posting.

However, do see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html...

....particularly the section entitled
"Why not send again to a different group?"

HTH

Re: Lavasoft Adaware
 

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:17:42 +0100, Tx2
<this.is.an.inv@lid.address.u.know.com> wrote:

>> The correct way to crosspost/multipost is not an open and shut case.
>
>I cite a 'popular' source for your perusal
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
>
>and then see the section "Etiquette" at
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_posting
>
>There are others. A Google search will provide references.

Wikipedia, you say. Hmmm, I wonder what they say about which
automobile is the best one for people to drive. I looked at
generalmotors.com, ford.com, and toyota.com, and they all seem to
think they have the best answer. Like I said, it's not an open and
shut case, Wikipedia not withstanding.

--
Zilbandy

Re: Lavasoft Adaware
 

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:26:07 -0700, Zilbandy
<zil@zilbandyREMOVETHIS.com> wrote:

> Like I said, it's not an open and
>shut case, Wikipedia not withstanding.

Maybe I should restate this. Some groups I frequent do not like
crossposts. I think one should try to conform with the norm for the
group. Now, I personally don't like to multipost or cross post, but I
do have a crosspost filter on my Usenet client and I do use it. Also,
when I reply to a crossposted message, my Usenet client is set to
respond only to the group I'm reading. All these options can make
crossposting just as frustrating as multiposting. My advice... do
neither.

--
Zilbandy

Re: Lavasoft Adaware
 

In article <r1gl031o8oqcif7dh68a02qu7j63gmsikv@4ax.com>,
zil@zilbandyREMOVETHIS.com says...

> Wikipedia, you say. Hmmm, I wonder what they say about which
> automobile is the best one for people to drive. I looked at
> generalmotors.com, ford.com, and toyota.com, and they all seem to
> think they have the best answer. Like I said, it's not an open and
> shut case, Wikipedia not withstanding.

....and like I said, a Google search will provide other references.

Wikipedia is respected enough - and certainly so in this instance - to
provide accurate information. If you choose to doubt it, then by your
own admission, you would benefit from further research in order to add
foundation to that which Wikipedia has already provided.

Car (automobile) analogies, whilst widely used, rarely work on Usenet by
the way.

I wasn't suggesting Wikipedia had the best answer, merely that it was
one of several which all agreed with the others.