In article .com>, "Mash" > wrote:
>Actually under old Usenet rules, the X-No-Archive: yes was started so
>not all posts would be archived. This gave posters a choice on whether
>they wanted their messages archived or not. I do not know if this is
>still done today after Google seems to have taken over the role of
>operating Usenet.

My memory is different. The "X" in the header indicates it is NOT a
standard USENET header; so there's no obligation at all on operators
of news servers to acknowledge it. AFAIK it was conceived as an
"instruction" to Google specifically (or perhaps Deja News
originally?) rather than with any expectation it would be obeyed
universally.

In any case, as someone previously mentioned, if a response quotes all
the stuff you didn't want archived, it will get added to the pile
anyway. So it's pretty much a wasted effort AFAICS.

>My biggest beef, and I will be showing my knowledge of Usenet, is some
>people began archiving recipes and then charging for them through their
>recipe collections. I have no problem freely sharing recipes but what
>gets my craw is seeing someone financially benefit for all the efforts
>put in by people who freely post.

Pretty trivial concern compared with all the *******s who benefit
financially by now restricting access to all the wild places I could
freely enjoy as a child!

>At least trying to use the X-No-Archive: yes should slow down this
>process.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID