On 2021-3-8 23:12, VanguardLH wrote:

Due to peering, most Usenet providers continued carrying the
microsoft.public.* newsgroups despite Microsoft shrunk away from Usenet
(because they couldn't control it nor alter the standards to their
wants). The users didn't abandon the microsoft.public.*. It was
Microsoft that fled away. Microsoft's logic back then was their last
version of Windows Server that included an NNTP server program (Windows
Server 2003?) was discontinued hence unsupported, and Microsoft used it
as an excuse to abandon Usenet. Microsoft refused to use a 3rd-party
NNTP server, even free ones (e.g., INN) than many Usenet providers use.

I do remember some self-appointed joker trying to claim Microsoft
authority tried to cancel all posts to the microsoft.public.* newsgroups
along with issuing requests to get the Usenet providers to remove the
newsgroups. I recall only 1 Usenet provider complied with the bogus
"Microsoft request". Everyone else didn't give a gnat's fart about the
imposter, nor did they care Microsoft was leaving Usenet. Usenet
doesn't require the permission of companies to have newsgroups created
that focus on a company's products. Creating official newsgroups (in
the Big-8 hierarchy) goes through a lengthy process, but deleting them
is even harder.

I don't have much knowledge about this. I suppose groups are deleted by
such a process: one post a special control message, signed by the
creator of the group, then the servers could automatically delete it as
long as they have the initial creator's key, or they could verify that
key through other ways. But, just as cancelling message function may be
configured to be disabled, the servers may choose not to process any
group deletion message, which is good sometimes (as group like this
one), yet also may contributed to many zombie groups at present.

--
Regards,
Lu Wei
IM:
PGP: 0xA12FEF7592CCE1EA