Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
No one can currently point to a universally proven oldest comment, thread, or news post on the internet. The best candidates depend on what counts as a comment and which records survived: early ARPANET technical exchanges date to 1969–1970, a mailing-list archive is reported to contain a message from 1975, and competing Usenet archives point to posts from 1980 and 1981. Digital archivists, network historians, and specialist archive holders are the people most likely to locate an earlier surviving candidate—but “oldest found” would not necessarily mean “first ever.”
The strongest candidates depend on what you mean
“Comment,” “thread,” “news,” and “internet” do not describe one consistent format across the history of networked computing. An early technical memo responding to another memo is discussion-like, but it is not a modern forum comment. A Usenet article resembles a public forum post, but it was distributed through news servers rather than published as a web page.
| Category | Candidate | Date | What the evidence establishes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early Internet discussion document | RFC 1, “Host Software” | April 7, 1969 | The RFC Editor’s archive records this early technical document. It is not a modern comment or thread. |
| Reply- or comment-like technical exchange | RFC 38, “Comments on Network Protocol from NWG/RFC #36” | March 1970 | A clearly titled response to an earlier network-protocol document; still technical correspondence, not a public forum thread. |
| Mailing-list message candidate | Message in an archived MSGROUP collection, reported in a Usenet-history discussion | June 7, 1975 | An archival candidate, not a globally audited record of every network message. |
| Oldest post reported in a specialist Usenet archive | “New Netnews,” in net.news |
May 16, 1980 | Usenet Archives identifies this as the oldest post preserved in its own collection. |
| Guinness-listed record for Google’s archived Usenet database | Mark Horton Usenet post | May 11, 1981 | Guinness World Records identifies this as the oldest Usenet post in Google’s archived database—not in every archive. |
The RFC Editor describes the RFC series as an early online publication series. That makes RFCs valuable evidence of networked technical discussion, but it does not make RFC 1 the oldest ordinary comment. The 1970 RFC 38 is a better fit for “reply-like,” while the later mailing-list and Usenet records more closely resemble group discussion or public posts.
Sources: RFC Editor history; RFC Index; MSGROUP archive discussion; Usenet Archives; Guinness World Records.
#1 Best Overall
Why no one can name a universal oldest post
There is a difference between the earliest message ever transmitted, the earliest message available to multiple network users, the earliest surviving message with original metadata, the oldest item searchable now, and the oldest item preserved on the modern web. A lost message could have been older than every item now accessible. An archive can establish the earliest item it preserves; by itself, it cannot prove that no earlier message existed elsewhere.
Early communication was spread across systems and institutions. RFCs, email lists, Usenet, bulletin-board systems, and other services did not share one central archive. Some material was kept on local machines, printed, overwritten, or lost during migrations. Collections therefore preserve different slices of the past.
- Different formats: a technical memo, mailing-list email, Usenet article, BBS post, and web-page comment are not interchangeable categories.
- Different boundaries: a collection may exclude private lists, direct email, local systems, or messages outside its own servers.
- Different dates: an original message header can show when a post was sent; an archive’s import, upload, or crawl date can show when a copy entered a collection. Those dates are not necessarily the same.
- Different survival: a search result is evidence of what an archive retained and indexed, not a census of all historical traffic.
The 1969 ARPANET login often cited as an Internet milestone answers a different question: it concerns an early network transmission, not the oldest surviving discussion. Likewise, the World Wide Web is only one part of Internet history. Networked documents and messages existed before the web. The RFC Editor’s history of the RFC series places its beginnings in 1969.
Who is most likely to find an earlier candidate?
The people with the best chance are those who can reach records beyond today’s public search indexes:
- Digital archivists with access to old magnetic tapes, disks, backups, or university computing collections.
- Former network, mailing-list, and Usenet administrators who may have retained server files, spool directories, or printed records.
- University libraries and computing-history collections holding early network documents or institutional archives.
- The RFC Editor, for surviving protocol documents and related technical correspondence.
- Specialist Usenet archivists, whose collections may include material missing from larger searchable archives.
- Google Groups, Internet Archive, and ArchiveTeam, which can help locate surviving online collections, though their searchable holdings are not exhaustive records of all early discussion.
Finding an earlier copy would establish an earlier surviving candidate, subject to verification. It would not, without a complete record of the relevant network traffic, prove that the message was the first ever sent.
How to search for and verify an early message
Start by deciding what claim you want to make. If you mean the oldest surviving networked technical exchange, begin with RFCs. If you mean group discussion, look at mailing-list and Usenet archives. If you mean a comment attached to a web page, treat that as a separate, later question rather than using it to define all Internet discussion.
Search early RFCs for technical replies
- Open the RFC Index and inspect early documents, starting with RFC 1 and nearby entries.
- Look for titles containing terms such as “Comments,” “Reply,” “Discussion,” or “Network Meeting.” RFC 38, “Comments on Network Protocol from NWG/RFC #36”, is one example of a response-like document.
- Record the RFC number, stated date, author, and references to earlier documents. Determine whether the item is a standalone memo or a direct response before calling it a comment.
- Describe an RFC-based result as early Internet technical correspondence unless the evidence supports a more specific format.
Search Usenet collections separately
- Search Google Groups for early Usenet material, including groups such as
net.generalandnet.news. - When you find a candidate, preserve its complete available header: date, author, newsgroup, subject, Message-ID, and any References or In-Reply-To fields.
- Compare it with specialist collections. Usenet Archives reports the May 16, 1980 “New Netnews” post as the oldest in its collection, while Guinness’ record for Google’s archive gives May 11, 1981.
- Check whether the date shown belongs to the original article or to a later import. Do not treat the oldest result in one collection as proof of the oldest post in all collections.
Investigate early mailing lists with care
The June 7, 1975 MSGROUP date is cited in a Usenet-history discussion. To assess it as a candidate, seek the original message headers and archive provenance, and establish that the message was distributed over a network rather than merely stored locally. The cited discussion is a useful lead, not a universal certification.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What would make an “oldest” claim convincing?
A strong claim should specify its category and archive boundary, then make the evidence inspectable. Check these points before ranking a candidate:
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors- Originality: Is the item an original message or a later transcription?
- Date integrity: Is the date present in an original header or contemporaneous document, rather than inferred from an upload or import?
- Network distribution: Is there evidence it reached multiple networked users?
- Public access: Was it available beyond the author’s own workstation or a private exchange?
- Reply relationship: Does it demonstrably respond to an earlier item?
- Thread continuity: Are the parent and reply both preserved, with reliable references connecting them?
- Archive provenance: Is it clear how the repository obtained and preserved the copy?
- Independent corroboration: Does another archive or historical source support the date and identity?
- Category fit: Is it actually a comment, thread, news article, mailing-list post, or technical memo?
- Scope of the claim: Does the evidence establish “oldest in this collection” or “oldest known surviving,” rather than “first ever”?
A reply can survive without its original post, and messages with the same subject do not necessarily form a thread. For that reason, “oldest post” and “oldest complete thread” require different evidence.
What about the oldest web comment?
That is a narrower question than the oldest Internet discussion. A web-page comment must belong to the World Wide Web; RFCs, mailing lists, and Usenet articles are earlier or separate forms of networked communication, not web comments. The evidence here does not establish a specific oldest surviving web-page comment, so it should not be inferred from the RFC or Usenet candidates.
Bulletin-board systems add another boundary question: many supported public discussion before the web, but some were isolated or connected through dial-up networks rather than the Internet. Include them only when the definition of “internet” explicitly includes such systems.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →
