Request to MS: Please destroy these groups.

microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz, and
microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000

offer very little value to anyone, most recent posts to these groups have
been people using SBS2003 but getting steered to the wrong group by MS pages
(I think the 'partner' pages need to be updated).

Though I appreciate the distinction that has existed for the various
versions of SBS, 4.5 is now a dead product so backoffice.smallbiz should be
little called for and very few SBS2000 questions are being raised that could
not be better handled in the microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs group (most
are about moving forward).

I do not know if MS intend creating a new group for SBS 2008. I see both
good and bad aspects to any such decision.

Newsgroup Participants: What's your opinion? Should all SBS traffic,
regardless of version, come to microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs? and all
pointers at MS be modified to also lead here? The final decision comes from
MS but maybe they'll listen.

William
Sat Sep 20 17:32:30 PDT 2008

SuperGumby [SBS MVP] wrote:

> microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz, and
> microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000

Doubtful that Microsoft will do this.

Once a newsgroup is created in Usenet it is *forever*. It is replicated
to hundreds, maybe thousands, of NNTP servers and Microsoft has no
control over these. Microsoft can not delete a group on their servers,
even if they created it, and have it get deleted on the other servers.
NNTP was not designed to do that.

Microsoft's stance has been that it would prefer the groups to be
"deprecated", which means they are still alive but go unused. They'd
prefer the deprecated newsgroups still be monitored rather than
questions go unanswered.

For the Office for Macintosh groups where we have several deprecated
groups, some of us pop in from time to time to gently guide folks to the
active newsgroups. And every chance I get I explain that the group is
deprecated and point to the active one, setting followup-to accordingly.

--

bill

Entourage Help Page <http://entourage.mvps.org/>
Entourage Help Blog <http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/>
YouTalk <http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/youtalk>
Twitter: follow <http://twitter.com/meck>

Charlie
Sun Sep 21 06:59:15 PDT 2008

There's really no way to do it, effectively. Once a group is created, the
process for deleting the group is both onerous and not terribly effective.
Usenet does have a process, but it's long and convoluted. Effectively, it
just isn't going to happen.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@your.nellie> wrote in message
news:%23qjsER3GJHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz, and
> microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000
>
> offer very little value to anyone, most recent posts to these groups have
> been people using SBS2003 but getting steered to the wrong group by MS
> pages (I think the 'partner' pages need to be updated).
>
> Though I appreciate the distinction that has existed for the various
> versions of SBS, 4.5 is now a dead product so backoffice.smallbiz should
> be little called for and very few SBS2000 questions are being raised that
> could not be better handled in the microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs
> group (most are about moving forward).
>
> I do not know if MS intend creating a new group for SBS 2008. I see both
> good and bad aspects to any such decision.
>
> Newsgroup Participants: What's your opinion? Should all SBS traffic,
> regardless of version, come to microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs? and
> all pointers at MS be modified to also lead here? The final decision comes
> from MS but maybe they'll listen.
>

Bill
Mon Sep 22 17:33:38 PDT 2008

FWIW, on the other question: I am for a single group for SBS support--all
versions. I'm well aware of the cons, but the pros win for me--it's just
simpler, for everybody involved.

--

"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@your.nellie> wrote in message
news:%23qjsER3GJHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz, and
> microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000
>
> offer very little value to anyone, most recent posts to these groups have
> been people using SBS2003 but getting steered to the wrong group by MS
> pages (I think the 'partner' pages need to be updated).
>
> Though I appreciate the distinction that has existed for the various
> versions of SBS, 4.5 is now a dead product so backoffice.smallbiz should
> be little called for and very few SBS2000 questions are being raised that
> could not be better handled in the microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs
> group (most are about moving forward).
>
> I do not know if MS intend creating a new group for SBS 2008. I see both
> good and bad aspects to any such decision.
>
> Newsgroup Participants: What's your opinion? Should all SBS traffic,
> regardless of version, come to microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs? and
> all pointers at MS be modified to also lead here? The final decision comes
> from MS but maybe they'll listen.
>

Holz
Mon Sep 22 20:15:46 PDT 2008

Bill Sanderson wrote:
> FWIW, on the other question: I am for a single group for SBS
> support--all versions. I'm well aware of the cons, but the pros win for
> me--it's just simpler, for everybody involved.
>
I agree on that one.

--
Jerry McGuire: Help me, help you...
:-)

Michael
Wed Sep 24 19:02:12 PDT 2008

Too true.

At least the archives are handy :)

William Smith [MVP] wrote:

> SuperGumby [SBS MVP] wrote:
>
> > microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz, and
> > microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000
>
> Doubtful that Microsoft will do this.
>
> Once a newsgroup is created in Usenet it is *forever*. It is replicated
> to hundreds, maybe thousands, of NNTP servers and Microsoft has no
> control over these. Microsoft can not delete a group on their servers,
> even if they created it, and have it get deleted on the other servers.
> NNTP was not designed to do that.
>
> Microsoft's stance has been that it would prefer the groups to be
> "deprecated", which means they are still alive but go unused. They'd
> prefer the deprecated newsgroups still be monitored rather than
> questions go unanswered.
>
> For the Office for Macintosh groups where we have several deprecated
> groups, some of us pop in from time to time to gently guide folks to the
> active newsgroups. And every chance I get I explain that the group is
> deprecated and point to the active one, setting followup-to accordingly.
>
>

--
Michael J. Jenkin MVP - SBS, MCP, Small Business Specialist, Senior
Systems Engineer
Visit http://www.mickyj.com