From: Hector Santos on
Finally, once you login, you have the WEB SERVICE "API" here:


Its all done. Watch out NNTP BRIDGE people - experts are on the move
now :)

Nahhh, I have no intention of duplicating what they did. It seems to
work fine. I would ask:

- remember the last screen position,
- option to auto go to the system task tray,
- option to auto login, auto startup.
- option to set server IP (not just
- option to use different server port,
some people actually have already their own NNTP server.

Probably some of these already there, but I don't see it.


Hector Santos wrote:

> David Ching wrote:
>> "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)> wrote in message
>> news:uLsiVKT7KHA.1888(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> After reviewing David Threadwell video discussing Live Services, this
>>> is all possible with the Live Framework.
>> That's great Hector, I hadn't heard of the Live Framework. BTW, I'm
>> not sure you can access it but check out
>> for access to the NNTP bridge discussion newsgroup.
>> -- David
> I was there already. :)
> Here is how to start developing for Live Services:
> Comes with excellent C# example.

From: Joseph M. Newcomer on
See below...
On Wed, 05 May 2010 22:14:46 -0400, Hector Santos <sant9442(a)> wrote:

>Joseph M. Newcomer wrote:
>> Sadly, it appears that the NNTP servers will be shut down, and NNTP will simply not be
>> supported. The problem seems to be that if it isn't invented by Microosft, it doesn't
>> count.
>The MS NNTP Bridge is a 3rd party tool. It wasn't developed by
>Microsoft. Go Figure. :)
>I think it should be noted that Microsoft is not the only vendor that
>people have to deal with. The main reason for MUAs is that it allows
>one the ability to have one mail reader/write for most, if not all, of
>their communications needs in dealing with technical support issues.
>Microsoft is breaking this mode with an exclusive MUA method. The
>bridge is the only redeeming value so all they really need is to
>expose and API - the hell with OPEN STANDARDS if its requires a
>committee, that takes too long and always seems to gets watered down.
An Open Standard merely requires disclosure, not comittees.
>They just need to dedicate one employee for 2-3 months to write up the
>WEB service/REST/XML specification.
And the intelligence to recognize that this is actually an important task to allocate
resources to.
>BTW, according to the stats on the equivalent MFC forum, it has a 28%
>response rate (response to no responses), where here I am seeing
>nearly 100%. Go Figure. :)
This is because children have their own agendas, which are very self-centered. Never try
to confuse a child with facts. It demonstrates why adult supervision is required for
major changes like this. To be an adult, more than 21 years of experience in the
particular sub-area is required.
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: newcomer(a)
MVP Tips:
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on
Imagine a conversation:

"Hey, guys, we need to make a decision on this. We have 4,000 forums supporting on the
order of 250,000 end users. They use NNTP, and we want to stop supporting that"

"So what? We don't support NNTP any longer, because someone else invented it and it is an
open standard, so screw 'em. Give our new hire the job of creating a Web site to do it.
Everything is done by Web sites, right? Besides, didn't we just send him to that
JavaScript course?"

I may be wrong. But a decision to kill off the NNTP forums sounds like nobody at
Microsoft was in touch with reality. Or, as we often phrase it "their reality-distortion
field was running full force that day".

On Thu, 06 May 2010 13:58:09 -0300, Cholo Lennon <chololennon(a)> wrote:

>On 04/05/2010 22:22, MP wrote:
>> Microsoft said it plans to end support for more than 4,000 old-style
>> newsgroups starting next month, pushing users instead to discussion
>> forums such as those found on the Microsoft Answers, TechNet, and MSDN
>> sites.
>> Although venerable, Microsoft said that so-called NNTP newsgroups are
>> past their time in terms of being usable and secure.
>> Link:
>> Mike P
>Very sad news... another stupid decision from Microsoft :-( What can I
>say... web forms aren't the way to go...
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: newcomer(a)
MVP Tips:
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on
I have been in favor of exposing the API since I first heard of this (sorry, I couldn't
say anything sooner, but we were under NDA). My comment was that as soon as they expose
the API, the newsgroup reader industry will be motivated to build code that interfaces to
that API. Leaving the design of the user interface up to a bunch of web amateurs is not a
viable solution (and I said it exactly like that; it is clear that the people who design
Microsoft's Web sites are really a bunch of beginners at this!)

So if the API is exposed, I would push Forte (vendor of my favorite NG reader) into
considering a Microsoft-forum-capable version of Agent, so the silliness of the unusable
Microsoft interface is no longer an issue.

NNTP is merely a transport mechanism to a competently-designed NG reader (or a MUA,
whatever that is!); I don't care if the underlying interface is NNTP or something else, as
long as I can have a decent presentation that looks like it was designed by someone who at
least once HEARD about a newsgroup before doing the design!

On Thu, 06 May 2010 11:41:08 -0400, Hector Santos <sant9442(a)> wrote:

>After reviewing David Threadwell video discussing Live Services, this
>is all possible with the Live Framework.
>So we are talking about the exposure of the API via a simple layer for
>clients to use, including MUAs. This presents new market
>opportunities for RFC based MUAs to begin to implement new products.
>This also presents a new market opportunity for a "Wildcat! Live
>Exchange" <tm> for us to integrate into our Application Server.
>So folks, this is not really much about the discontinuing of the
>Microsoft NNTP Servers but rather promoting a push for Microsoft
>product users to the preferred centralized Live "network" and storage
>of data. I personally do not see a reason why that should be lost
>other than not having more control of the input side of it, but
>starting with a new controlled and single source storage/cloud of
>information is probably not a bad idea.
>The key is access.
>I don't think people should sweat it much. If NNTP access is still
>preferred with their favorite MUA, the current bridge is a start, but
>I am very sure that will be other gateway software made available
>using the Live Framework SDK.
>I just hope that Ozzie doesn't get the idea that they should TAX users
>or providers who accessing the information. Remember, that is still
>always part of the equation. Many software, like our product offers
>the accounting for such activity but it is very limited usage today.
>It only worked well for special trade services where end-users have no
>choice to pay extra fees for different tiers of technical support
>Hector Santos wrote:
>> David Ching wrote:
>>> "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:u5Ul6CR7KHA.420(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Expect offloaded native GUI desktop clients to be available soon enough.
>>>> My advice to them is to publish an API and allow the new industry
>>>> from here on out to write better or custom interfaces. Otherwise, it
>>>> will be a constant cost burden to them and no doubt, someone will
>>>> reverse engineer it, so take control of that by getting releasing an
>>>> API.
>>> Microsoft originally had a Windows client written in WPF and in fact
>>> it is still available but probably doesn't work because it hasn't been
>>> updated to the latest forum API's:
>>> They abandoned this and then focused on the NNTP Bridge. This is in
>>> light that people were complaining the UI was inferior to popular NNTP
>>> newsreaders. So for once Microsoft listened and gave what was asked
>>> for: a way to re-purpose NNTP newsreaders for use with the MS forums.
>>> The problem now is the Bridge still has issues with popular NNTP
>>> newsreaders, notice how they have "tiers" of support for various
>>> newsreaders with the Microsoft newsreaders being in the top tier.
>>> Even the top tier newsreaders have issues, the main one getting a lot
>>> of noise esp. by our own David Wilkinson is the "mismatched subject
>>> and body" problem. As well, users are now saying, "well since this is
>>> NNTP why doesn't MS host the NNTP server instead of me running it
>>> locally. I don't want to install new software on my PC. And the
>>> bridge doesn't work on the Mac." So the bridge is not perfect and may
>>> not ever be due to mismatches between NNTP and the forum back end.
>>> All this to say: it will be some time before MS opens the forum API's
>>> to 3rd parties, if ever.
>> I'm currently doing research and I believe it is all already available
>> with Microsoft Live SDK. However, the REST protocol my not be well
>> established yet. Its not like impossible to reverse engineer, in fact,
>> its quite simple, just hover your mouse over the URL to see the common
>> pattern to access a forums list, a forum, a topic, a message, etc and
>> GET the request, and parse the result. I'm sure there is a URL option
>> that defines the output forum, like XML or RSS.
>> But overall, with the diverse nature of users, technically, there should
>> be no problem here. They need experts! I hope this isn't new pet
>> projects for a few employees that have to learn on their own what long
>> understood all the framework issues. You need a "CZAR" that oversees
>> all the different angles.
>> We do it with a centralized backend storage with multiple interfaces:
>> Console Interface (supports the "Extras")
>> Native GUI desktop interface (supports the "Extras")
>> Web Interface (supports the "Extras")
>> POP3 interface (RFC 2822 format)
>> NNTP interface (RFC 2822 format)
>> Microsoft Exchange for Outlook (RFC 2822 format)
>> and we are working on IMAP:
>> IMAP interface (RFC 2822 format, supports "some" extras)
>> (pondering, did I miss any?)
>> Anyway, this is only all possible with a common API.
>> Microsoft can actually make a big play here by offering RFC 2822
>> eXtended headers to help support the "Extras" because right now RFC
>> based MUAs do not support any eXtended headers. We keep talking about
>> it for all kinds of new MUA interface needs but there is no real push
>> because there is no big SOURCE of information to invest in this
>> development. Web rendering is the only real solution but there is no
>> common MAIL structure for all other than RFC 2822. But if we are just
>> talking about Microsoft, I can guarantee there will be a market for MUA
>> vendors to support "Microsoft Mail Extensions." That is all it often
>> takes when the big gorilla to support new ideas.
>> The MS NNTP bridge developer can expose this information itself and the
>> clients can do it. Or even the MS NNTP Servers if they choose to keep it.
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: newcomer(a)
MVP Tips:
From: Giovanni Dicanio on
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)> wrote:

> I may be wrong. But a decision to kill off the NNTP forums sounds like
> nobody at
> Microsoft was in touch with reality. Or, as we often phrase it "their
> reality-distortion
> field was running full force that day".

I think that they can do money on the web forums thanks to advertising; this
is not possible with NNTP newsgroups.
And on the web forum it is possible to delete posts and threads or move them
around (again, not possible with NNTP).