Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
Am 06.09.2023 um 14:21:38 Uhr schrieb The Doctor:
About time these abusers are put to book!
Are there many server that peer with Google?
news.highwinds-media.com
proxad.net
giganews
These are mostly used
Come on, Marco, it's impossible to take you seriously when you post
followups to Yads. All major News sites peer with Google Groups. There
may be exceptions but I don't know what they are.
Despite abuse problems they remain a major source of articles.
Am 06.09.2023 um 14:21:38 Uhr schrieb The Doctor:
About time these abusers are put to book!
Are there many server that peer with Google?
news.highwinds-media.com
proxad.net
giganews
These are mostly used
tweak.nl
fu-berlin.de #I wonder how they got peered with Google
news.glorb.com # sees to be down
!goblin.stu.neva.ru!z5-v6no139834ite.0 #goblin is down
About time these abusers are put to book!
Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
Am 06.09.2023 um 14:21:38 Uhr schrieb The Doctor:
About time these abusers are put to book!
Are there many server that peer with Google?
news.highwinds-media.com
proxad.net
giganews
These are mostly used
Come on, Marco, it's impossible to take you seriously when you post
followups to Yads. All major News sites peer with Google Groups. There
may be exceptions but I don't know what they are.
I heard the rumor that peering with Google Groups isn't public. I
simply grepped over the articles I've on my machine, but I assume
that the result would be different if most news servers peered with
Google.
Despite abuse problems they remain a major source of articles.
True, there are some interesting posts. One of the reasons I don't have >Google Groups in my killfile.
I don't think that UDP is a good idea here.
Much better would be to only block articles that have certain words in
the subject, like the name of drugs.
Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
Am 06.09.2023 um 14:21:38 Uhr schrieb The Doctor:
About time these abusers are put to book!
Are there many server that peer with Google?
news.highwinds-media.com
proxad.net
giganews
These are mostly used
Come on, Marco, it's impossible to take you seriously when you post
followups to Yads. All major News sites peer with Google Groups. There
may be exceptions but I don't know what they are. Despite abuse problems
they remain a major source of articles.
tweak.nl
fu-berlin.de #I wonder how they got peered with Google
news.glorb.com # sees to be down
!goblin.stu.neva.ru!z5-v6no139834ite.0 #goblin is down
You can use these nocem on your server to make yours
groups more redeable.
Le 05/10/2023 10:17, llp a crit :
You can use these nocem on your server to make yours
groups more redeable.
LLP is still a far right troll, so be careful what you accept.
Le 05/10/2023 à 10:52, llp a écrit :
These nocems are in use at least on:
- usenet.ovh
- eternal-september
- paganini
Best regards
Tell them you are the reason why Alphanet is no longer online.
These nocems are in use at least on:
- usenet.ovh
- eternal-september
- paganini
Best regards
Tell them you are the reason why Alphanet is no longer online.
If a troll is the reason that an admin decides to discontinue the
service...
I think other reasons were also there.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) composa la prose suivante:
Hi,
WEll now more calls at East-asian spmatrollers are flooding
comp.lang.c to no end!
Same on sci.crypt and sci.lang.japan
I modify my nocem (bot: nocembot on news.lists.filters )
to protect "fr", "comp" and "sci" hierarchy.
The bot track "spam" and "flood" every five minutes.
It track also est-asian spam.
You can use these nocem on your server to make yours
groups more redeable.
best regards,
newsmaster of news.usenet.ovh
Copy and Follow to "news.admin.net-abuse.usenet"
--
Liste de serveurs offrant un accès gratuit à la hiérarchie FR.* >http://usenet.ovh/?article=faq_serveur_gratuit
Recherche d'article Usenet
http://usenet.ovh/?article=ual
* The Doctor wrote:
FYI how can one use nocem in INN?
INN comes with perl-nocem.
https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/inn/docs/perl-nocem.html
FYI how can one use nocem in INN?
We need a whitelisting solution, at the federation level.
That is to say, servers like Eternal September should reject all
articles from Google Groups, except from users who are whitelisted.
Usenet could get together and provide a registration service whereby
Google Groups users can register their account for whitelisting.
Those who don't are effectively shadow banned by default, confined
to the Google Groups echo chamber.
Obviously, that registration system would have to be better run than
Google's own account registration, which is the point. Google sets such
a low bar that effort would be needed to bend down that far to do
an equally bad job.
One technical difficulty is that, in the article headers, Google Groups accounts are identified by an anonymized account ID string. Users don't
know what that string is, and there might not be any way to get it other
than sending an article to another server and getting the headers from
there. (Perhaps GG lets you view the raw article, with headers, if it's
your own).
accounts are identified by an anonymized account ID string. Users don't
know what that string is, and there might not be any way to get it other
than sending an article to another server and getting the headers from
there. (Perhaps GG lets you view the raw article, with headers, if it's
your own).
Seems like a simpler way to get the half-dozen worthwhile GG posters separated from the spam vs. implementing a whole new layer of
whitelisting that needs cooperation from many different news server
admins and is still ripe for abuse, mismanagement, and abandonment.
* The Doctor wrote:
FYI how can one use nocem in INN?
INN comes with perl-nocem.
https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/inn/docs/perl-nocem.html
--
Пу́тін — хуйло́
http://www.eternal-september.org
A simpler idea for whitelisting googlegroups posters would be for
newsservers to have an email address where people can send an email,
possibly in a certain format , which would essentially say that if the
From: header field matches such and such pattern then the person
posting through googlegroups is not a spammer
In theory spammers could abuse this but I don't think it's likely
they would even notice that such a measure is in place. I don't get
the impression that the spammers monitor the groups they spam , they
just use some automatic scripts.
For example I read comp.lang.c regularly and there are only 3-4
legitimate posters who post through googlegroups so I could easily
provide the information for those.
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 16:52:03 -0000 (UTC)
Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> wrote:
Usenet could get together and provide a registration service whereby
Google Groups users can register their account for whitelisting.
Those who don't are effectively shadow banned by default, confined
to the Google Groups echo chamber.
That would probably be more trouble than it's worth. At least in non-tech groups, many (most?) GG users don't even know they are using usenet.
I've
had threats to one of my sites (web usenet interface) that if I don't stop scraping google groups for content, they would contact Google (lol)
A simpler idea for whitelisting googlegroups posters would be for newsservers to have an email address where people can send an email , possibly in a certain format , which would essentially say that if the From: header field matches such and such pattern then the person posting through googlegroups is not a spammer (he may still be a troll or brain damaged or obsessive compulsive poster of bullshit but not a spammer). It wouldn't even have to be the person using the specific From: address submitting the information.
In theory spammers could abuse this but I don't think it's likely they would even notice that such a measure is in place. I don't get the impression that the spammers monitor the groups they spam , they just use some automatic scripts.
[FU2]
Le 06/10/2023 à 16:28, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) a écrit :
It appears that if enough people using the google groups interface
complain about spam in comp.lang.c, they'll fix it. That worked for
comp.arch, it appears.
Yes, it worked, Google just deleted the newsgroup : >http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cfc5652a3-1c35-4b43-8f8d-1527e4257ac2n%40googlegroups.com%3E
It appears that if enough people using the google groups interface
complain about spam in comp.lang.c, they'll fix it. That worked for
comp.arch, it appears.
Yes, it worked, Google just deleted the newsgroup :
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cfc5652a3-1c35-4b43-8f8d-1527e4257ac2n%40googlegroups.com%3E
While it sucks for Mitch, he can always switch to a real usenet
service.
Le 06/10/2023 à 16:51, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) a écrit :
It appears that if enough people using the google groups interface
complain about spam in comp.lang.c, they'll fix it. That worked for
comp.arch, it appears.
Yes, it worked, Google just deleted the newsgroup :
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cfc5652a3-1c35-4b43-8f8d-1527e4257ac2n%40googlegroups.com%3E
While it sucks for Mitch, he can always switch to a real usenet
service.
That's what people told him, but no one saw Mitch ever again.
And the archive was destroyed too. Google doesn't care at all.
["Followup-To:" header set to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.]
* The Doctor wrote:
Depeer Google groups now! Enough with the anaccountability!
Fancy to revive the late Lee Rizor's (a.k.a Blinky the Shark)
Usenet Improvement Project?
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/index.html
--
Пу́тін — хуйло́
http://www.eternal-september.org
* Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
A simpler idea for whitelisting googlegroups posters would be for newsservers
to have an email address where people can send an email , possibly in a certain format , which would essentially say that if the From: header field
matches such and such pattern then the person posting through googlegroups is
not a spammer (he may still be a troll or brain damaged or obsessive compulsive poster of bullshit but not a spammer). It wouldn't even have to be
the person using the specific From: address submitting the information.
Why would you use a whitelist? Wouldn't a blacklist with all confirmed spammers
be more reliable and the spammers would register their mail addresses addresses
by simply spamming (i.e. posting an article that is recognized as spam by appropriate filters?
In theory spammers could abuse this but I don't think it's likely they would
even notice that such a measure is in place. I don't get the impression that
the spammers monitor the groups they spam , they just use some automatic scripts.
There are funny things going on in the spammed groups.
Someone posted a killfile entry for tin in comp.lang.c
<ufjr39$ak71$1@dont-email.me>
and some kind soul translated the posting to Thai and posted it to the same group:
<18a75249-032f-4f06-9c5f-0b5f6025e3b7n@googlegroups.com>
I'm not pleased with GG as a Usenet interface, but it's still a decent >archive. I wouldn't want to lose that.__________________
I was thinking that a whitelist would be faster and simpler. As for filters , a human familiar with the group would certainly be more reliable than an automatic filter.
<ufjr39$ak71$1@dont-email.me>
and some kind soul translated the posting to Thai and posted it to the same >> group:
<18a75249-032f-4f06-9c5f-0b5f6025e3b7n@googlegroups.com>
I don't read Thai but the googlegroups post is not a translation of
<ufjr39$ak71$1@dont-email.me> .The latter has
group=*
case=0
score=kill
msgid_last=*<*@googlegroups.com>*
[FU2]
Le 06/10/2023 à 16:28, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) a écrit :
It appears that if enough people using the google groups interface
complain about spam in comp.lang.c, they'll fix it. That worked
for comp.arch, it appears.
Yes, it worked, Google just deleted the newsgroup : http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cfc5652a3-1c35-4b43-8f8d-1527e4257ac2n%40googlegroups.com%3E
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 17:11:27 -0000 (UTC)
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking that a whitelist would be faster and simpler. As for filters ,
a human familiar with the group would certainly be more reliable than an
automatic filter.
The quantity of spam precludes manual filtering. Thousands upon thousands of >spam messages, where you would need an entire team to handle that by hand.
--
Retro Guy
In article <20231006175944.2258f79eef470c06cf49c5b3@novabbs.org>,
Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 00:55:43 -0000 (UTC)
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <2f5fff571adf1caea9290b4ad916ef8d$1@sybershock.com>,There are efforts by some admins to resolve this. Many groups are now quite >>usable as admins are tackling and conquering the spam.
Syber Shock <admin@sybershock.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 15:16:29 +0100But their abusers are making groups unreadable.
Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
It is not our job to worry about Google's users.If a GG user manages to find a technical group that hasn't beenWe need a whitelisting solution, at the federation level.
flooded with spam, then they'd wonder why an otherwise active group
is completely ignoring them. I don't think whitelisting would be
fair.
It is Google's job to worry about their users.
The mother hen mentality fixes nothing.
It should need to be this way, but it is what it is. Nobody tells Google what >>to do.
Too big for their own head.
talk about how to
* Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
<ufjr39$ak71$1@dont-email.me>
and some kind soul translated the posting to Thai and posted it to the same
group:
<18a75249-032f-4f06-9c5f-0b5f6025e3b7n@googlegroups.com>
I don't read Thai but the googlegroups post is not a translation of
<ufjr39$ak71$1@dont-email.me> .The latter has
group=*
case=0
score=kill
msgid_last=*<*@googlegroups.com>*
The Thai message reads:
which Google Translator (how ironic) translates as
"I saw Kenny McCormack post what to do about spam.
Here for trn this is what I do when using tin.
You can add these 4 lines to the file "~/.tin/filter" I found that
This is the only solution that worked for me. The other items I
Found in web search failure"
Not perfect, but you get the meaning.
And at the same time, you have refuted your claim that
human moderators are more reliable ;-)
not to mention availability. And I have ~15.000 spam mails
from Google Groups on my server accumulated over the last
3 days. Care to check them manually?
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 17:11:27 -0000 (UTC)
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking that a whitelist would be faster and simpler. As for filters ,
a human familiar with the group would certainly be more reliable than an automatic filter.
The quantity of spam precludes manual filtering. Thousands upon thousands of spam messages, where you would need an entire team to handle that by hand.
In article <d78a803bb42cae27c3cad8f3e7b993d4$1@sybershock.com>,
Syber Shock <admin@sybershock.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 15:16:29 +0100
Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
If a GG user manages to find a technical group that hasn't been
flooded with spam, then they'd wonder why an otherwise active group
is completely ignoring them. I don't think whitelisting would be
fair.
Google groups users are the modern version of the September AOL users.
Exactly!
--
__|__|__|__ 3883@sugar.bug
__|__|__|__ https://sybershock.com
__|__|__|__ news://alt.sources.crypto
| | | #CipherTag #WaffleTag #Cryptologer
The Doctor to Keith Thompson:
I'm not pleased with GG as a Usenet interface, but it's
still a decent archive. I wouldn't want to lose that.
The archive is already lost due to high spamtrollers!
usenetarcives.com is another emerging option. If they get
enough funding, they may have a chance of replacing Google's
archive. Does anybody know how full their coverage is going
to be?
usenetarchives.com [Ant: typo fixed] is another emerging
option. If they get enough funding, they may have a
chance of replacing Google's archive. Does anybody know
how full their coverage is going to be?
Not really good, at least not for recent stuff. If I
search my name, I can't find any post.
usenetarcives.com is another emerging option.
I wrote:
usenetarcives.com is another emerging option.
I beg everybody's pardon for a typo in the URL. I had better
copy it from the browser:
<https://www.usenetarchives.com/>
usenetarcives.com is another emerging option.
I beg everybody's pardon for a typo in the URL. I had better
copy it from the browser:
<https://www.usenetarchives.com/>
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 17:59:44 -0700, Retro Guy wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 00:55:43 -0000 (UTC)
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <2f5fff571adf1caea9290b4ad916ef8d$1@sybershock.com>,There are efforts by some admins to resolve this. Many groups are now
Syber Shock <admin@sybershock.com> wrote:
It is not our job to worry about Google's users.But their abusers are making groups unreadable.
It is Google's job to worry about their users.
The mother hen mentality fixes nothing.
quite usable as admins are tackling and conquering the spam.
It should need to be this way, but it is what it is. Nobody tells Google
what to do.
pfft google thought they were too big not be dnsbl listed, nor that any >network would dare block all gmail for periods of time to send them a >message, google were wrong, both counts.
The Doctor to Keith Thompson:
I'm not pleased with GG as a Usenet interface, but it's
still a decent archive. I wouldn't want to lose that.
The archive is already lost due to high spamtrollers!
usenetarcives.com is another emerging option. If they get
enough funding, they may have a chance of replacing Google's
archive. Does anybody know how full their coverage is going
to be?
CLC removed from FollowUp-To: at Keith's request.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
Le 07/10/2023 à 12:55, Anton Shepelev a écrit :
usenetarcives.com is another emerging option.
I beg everybody's pardon for a typo in the URL. I had better
copy it from the browser:
<https://www.usenetarchives.com/>
They don't have all the hierarchies. Only the Big 8 and a few alt.*
groups.
Marco Moock to Anton Shepelev:
usenetarchives.com [Ant: typo fixed] is another emerging
option. If they get enough funding, they may have a
chance of replacing Google's archive. Does anybody know
how full their coverage is going to be?
Not really good, at least not for recent stuff. If I
search my name, I can't find any post.
They have not finished pupolating the archive yet, and
according the their Stats page, migration to another
database is underway. Let us recheck later.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 18:26:19 -0000 (UTC)
Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> wrote:
* Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
<ufjr39$ak71$1@dont-email.me>
and some kind soul translated the posting to Thai and posted it to the same
group:
<18a75249-032f-4f06-9c5f-0b5f6025e3b7n@googlegroups.com>
I don't read Thai but the googlegroups post is not a translation of
<ufjr39$ak71$1@dont-email.me> .The latter has
group=*
case=0
score=kill
msgid_last=*<*@googlegroups.com>*
The Thai message reads:
[...]
which Google Translator (how ironic) translates as
Nothing ironic about it. Many of Google services are good. Their email >service in particular is very good at filtering spam. Hence it's a
mystery to me why they don't do the same with googlegroups.
"I saw Kenny McCormack post what to do about spam.
Here for trn this is what I do when using tin.
You can add these 4 lines to the file "~/.tin/filter" I found that
This is the only solution that worked for me. The other items I
Found in web search failure"
Not perfect, but you get the meaning.
Ok , so the Thai message did not translate the whole of ><ufjr39$ak71$1@dont-email.me> .
And at the same time, you have refuted your claim that
human moderators are more reliable ;-)
In what way have I refuted it ?
not to mention availability. And I have ~15.000 spam mails
from Google Groups on my server accumulated over the last
3 days. Care to check them manually?
By "mails" do you mean usenet posts ? If yes then noone suggested going >manually through the spam , see <xcM1CDmY5isYRGNHp@bongo-ra.co> .
On 7 Oct 2023 19:32:59 +1000, noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2023 17:59:44 -0700, Retro Guy wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 00:55:43 -0000 (UTC)
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <2f5fff571adf1caea9290b4ad916ef8d$1@sybershock.com>,There are efforts by some admins to resolve this. Many groups are now
Syber Shock <admin@sybershock.com> wrote:
It is not our job to worry about Google's users.But their abusers are making groups unreadable.
It is Google's job to worry about their users.
The mother hen mentality fixes nothing.
quite usable as admins are tackling and conquering the spam.
It should need to be this way, but it is what it is. Nobody tells Google >>> what to do.
pfft google thought they were too big not be dnsbl listed, nor that any >>network would dare block all gmail for periods of time to send them a >>message, google were wrong, both counts.
the pandemic googlespam flood continues unabated . . .
"googlegroups.com" is a ghost ship running on autopilot
On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 13:54:28 -0000 (UTC)
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <f35182db5b4c06bbc8350051fc621a50$1@sybershock.com>,
Syber Shock <admin@sybershock.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 17:59:44 -0700
Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> wrote:
Nobody tells Google what to do.
Be careful not to poke the bear. The purple-haired Google vegan
skinny-jeans mafia might come after you.
They might shell your house with yogurt and tofu and lettuce greens and
other weapons of rabbit destruction.
Back to the real world, comp.mail.sendmail is getting hammered
like comp.lang.c
Try a different server. comp.mail.sendmail looks fine on eternal-september.org and i2pn2.org.
In article <d78a803bb42cae27c3cad8f3e7b993d4$1@sybershock.com>,
Syber Shock <admin@sybershock.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 15:16:29 +0100
Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
If a GG user manages to find a technical group that hasn't been
flooded with spam, then they'd wonder why an otherwise active group
is completely ignoring them. I don't think whitelisting would be
fair.
Google groups users are the modern version of the September AOL users.
Exactly!
On 10/7/23 13:52, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/7/2023 6:55 AM, The Doctor wrote:
Treat Google Groups like you do Google+ .
Heck, even Google itself nuked Google+.
Google comes up with and drops so much its incredible.
On 2023-10-05, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> writes:
The Doctor:
WEll now more calls at East-asian spmatrollers are
flooding comp.lang.c to no end!
Is it a coincidence that it stopped here in CLC several
hours after I logged in to Google Gropus and reported some
fourty Thai articles as SPAM?
Probably. Ray (who runs Eternal September) is aware of the issue
and is continually (or so I imagine) updating his filters.
I have another feed and, using that alternate view, comp.lang.c has
had 2407 posts in the last day.
We need a whitelisting solution, at the federation level.
That is to say, servers like Eternal September should reject all
articles from Google Groups, except from users who are whitelisted.
Usenet could get together and provide a registration service whereby
Google Groups users can register their account for whitelisting.
Those who don't are effectively shadow banned by default, confined
to the Google Groups echo chamber.
Obviously, that registration system would have to be better run than
Google's own account registration, which is the point. Google sets
such a low bar that effort would be needed to bend down that far to do
an equally bad job.
One technical difficulty is that, in the article headers, Google
Groups accounts are identified by an anonymized account ID string.
Users don't know what that string is, and there might not be any way
to get it other than sending an article to another server and getting
the headers from there. (Perhaps GG lets you view the raw article,
with headers, if it's your own).
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
[...]
I'm redirecting followups to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet; feel free to >>>cross-post to news.software.nntp if it's really topical there.
I mean, the whole point is that we don't want off-topic posts, right?
These are on tpoic to the groups that are getting spamtroll flooded!
The comp.lang.c Thai spam still appears on groups.google.com, but has >vanished from news.eternal-september.org and news.i2pn2.org. Apparently
the admins of those sites have cleaned it up.
comp.lang.c is now being dominated by this thread. Please take it
elsewhere. Followups redirected again.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
In article <2f5fff571adf1caea9290b4ad916ef8d$1@sybershock.com>,
Syber Shock <admin@sybershock.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 15:16:29 +0100
Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
We need a whitelisting solution, at the federation level.
If a GG user manages to find a technical group that hasn't been
flooded with spam, then they'd wonder why an otherwise active group
is completely ignoring them. I don't think whitelisting would be
fair.
It is not our job to worry about Google's users.
It is Google's job to worry about their users.
The mother hen mentality fixes nothing.
But their abusers are making groups unreadable.
On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 13:54:28 -0000 (UTC)
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
In article <f35182db5b4c06bbc8350051fc621a50$1@sybershock.com>,
Syber Shock <admin@sybershock.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 17:59:44 -0700
Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> wrote:
Nobody tells Google what to do.
Be careful not to poke the bear. The purple-haired Google vegan
skinny-jeans mafia might come after you.
They might shell your house with yogurt and tofu and lettuce greens and >>>> other weapons of rabbit destruction.
Back to the real world, comp.mail.sendmail is getting hammered
like comp.lang.c
Try a different server. comp.mail.sendmail looks fine on
eternal-september.org and i2pn2.org.
Yes, Eternal-September.org is a good choice.
If you are a newsmaster, you can accept nocem from
eternal-september and news.usenet.ovh.
These nocems do a good job on google spam.
Eternal-September nocems are active on all hierarchies and generated
every 30 minutes. Usenet.ovh nocems currently protect "fr", "comp"
and "sci" and are generated every 5 minutes.
Ideally, you should accept both for maximum efficiency.
More information: http://usenet.ovh/?article=nocem
Best regards.
Follow-up to: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-05, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:Yes, and no. Yes, whitelisting could be one option. But we already have
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> writes:We need a whitelisting solution, at the federation level.
The Doctor:Probably. Ray (who runs Eternal September) is aware of the issue
WEll now more calls at East-asian spmatrollers areIs it a coincidence that it stopped here in CLC several
flooding comp.lang.c to no end!
hours after I logged in to Google Gropus and reported some
fourty Thai articles as SPAM?
and is continually (or so I imagine) updating his filters.
I have another feed and, using that alternate view, comp.lang.c has
had 2407 posts in the last day.
a defacto whitelist by the peers we choose to synchronize with. When you
add a peer to your config you have just whitelisted that peer. Managing
users in a whitelist fashion would be cumbersome and error-prone and a
vector for administrative abuse.
Whitelisting via the path header to exclude messages with unlisted peers
in the path would be viable. But you would need to sync with a dozen or
more peers to get all the good messages from a pool of much more than a
dozen peers. I think some sysops don't want to maintain a dozen or more >peers.
That is to say, servers like Eternal September should reject allUnless complex cryptographic signature verifications are put in place
articles from Google Groups, except from users who are whitelisted.
in the proposed central registry, forging would be a route around
this kind of whitelisting.
Usenet could get together and provide a registration service wherebyI reject the idea of a central registration service. That would be
Google Groups users can register their account for whitelisting.
Those who don't are effectively shadow banned by default, confined
to the Google Groups echo chamber.
severely abused to track and censor people. It might not happen right
away, but eventually it would morph into the norm.
If a peer is not making good faith effort to thwart abuse then every
user on that peer should be blocked. You should never try to be mother
hen over the users of someone else's service. If they are not smart
enough to detect the danger they are eliminated from the chicken
species. If mother hen is a failure, her chicks get eliminated from the >chicken gene pool, which is a brutal necessity of nature. Surely it is
not fair. So what?
Obviously, that registration system would have to be better run thanYou are suggesting a central network registry, which will eventually
Google's own account registration, which is the point. Google sets
such a low bar that effort would be needed to bend down that far to do
an equally bad job.
get taken over by bureaucrats or buffoons to everyone's detriment. It
won't "might" happen. It will happen. And then you also have a single
point of attack for government agencies to silence dissent.
Which country should the registry be based in? See the problem?
If a independent registration platform were used, in which peers could
choose which registry to use, that would be almost viable, as it would
give sysops the choice of association. But still the organs of state
could micromanage it for easy censorship.
Anything that is not sufficiently decentralized will be attacked by the >organs of the state or the organs of crime. Google is facilitating both >attacks. By treating Google as a sacred cow, sysops are effectively NOT >operating a decentralized protocol. Relationships change. Character
changes. You adapt to those changes. NNTP facilitates that ability to
roll with the punches.
One technical difficulty is that, in the article headers, GoogleYou can block Google. All non-commercial peer operators should have
Groups accounts are identified by an anonymized account ID string.
Users don't know what that string is, and there might not be any way
to get it other than sending an article to another server and getting
the headers from there. (Perhaps GG lets you view the raw article,
with headers, if it's your own).
no problem with this. Google is the biggest source of spam and abuse,
and has done nothing for many years to fix the problem. You gain
nothing by allowing Google to continue abusing the network. You gain >everything by a concerted front to tell Google to take a flying leap
off a ledge. By spamming you all for years, Google has been telling you
the same thing. Are you going to take that any longer?
Look at it this way: Google does NOT care about you or your server or
your users experience. Why would you want to play mother hen and show
care and concern for Google's users? That's like a father ignoring his
own kids and letting them run riot with a cannibal gang, and taking the >neighbor's kids to the amusement park. Sure, the neighbor kids think
that's fair.
As for whitelising, it can only work non-abusively with a small network
of peers that are able to quickly agree to adapt to attacks on the
whitelist registry. Otherwise a whitelist registry it is just a
foundation for a new set of problems.
In article <eopCvYdjL1RzK7sP8cAOJRWJfNY@jntp>,
They don't have all the hierarchies. Only the Big 8 and a few alt.*
groups.
Google trying to be the monopoly has to be broken.
Is Google *really* the monopoly for Usenet? It seems like most real
users avoid it.
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 16:52:03 -0000 (UTC)
Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> wrote:
That is to say, servers like Eternal September should reject all
articles from Google Groups, except from users who are whitelisted.
Unless complex cryptographic signature verifications are put in place
in the proposed central registry, forging would be a route around
this kind of whitelisting.
You can block Google. All non-commercial peer operators should have
no problem with this.
Look at it this way: Google does NOT care about you or your server or
your users experience. Why would you want to play mother hen and show
care and concern for Google's users?
[FU2]
Le 08/10/2023 à 09:52, candycanearter07 a écrit :
Is Google *really* the monopoly for Usenet? It seems like most real
users avoid it.
According to the stats, it's Highwinds Media :
http://top1000.anthologeek.net/top1000.current.txt
Not sure if it's better :)
On 10/7/23 09:02, The Doctor wrote:
In article <eopCvYdjL1RzK7sP8cAOJRWJfNY@jntp>,
They don't have all the hierarchies. Only the Big 8 and a few alt.*
groups.
Google trying to be the monopoly has to be broken.
Is Google *really* the monopoly for Usenet? It seems like most real
users avoid it.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
[FU2]
Le 08/10/2023 à 09:52, candycanearter07 a écrit :
Is Google *really* the monopoly for Usenet? It seems like most real
users avoid it.
According to the stats, it's Highwinds Media :
http://top1000.anthologeek.net/top1000.current.txt
Not sure if it's better :)
Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> writes:
[FU2]
Le 08/10/2023 à 09:52, candycanearter07 a écrit :
Is Google *really* the monopoly for Usenet? It seems like most real
users avoid it.
According to the stats, it's Highwinds Media :
http://top1000.anthologeek.net/top1000.current.txt
Not sure if it's better :)
That tells you more about propagation than end users. I think Highwinds
are focussed on binaries, too.
Based on the subset of text Usenet I carry, Google represents a huge
chunk of the posting user base.
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/agents-summary.html
(I should make the table report percentages, and there’s some versions
to combine too...)
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Is Google *really* the monopoly for Usenet? It seems like most real
users avoid it.
According to the stats, it's Highwinds Media :
http://top1000.anthologeek.net/top1000.current.txt
Not sure if it's better :)
If they block google groups ....
Le 08/10/2023 à 13:25, doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) a écrit :
Is Google *really* the monopoly for Usenet? It seems like most real
users avoid it.
According to the stats, it's Highwinds Media :
http://top1000.anthologeek.net/top1000.current.txt
Not sure if it's better :)
If they block google groups ....
They have a direct feed, look at the path : >http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=169677328300
About time these abusers are put to book!
On 06/09/2023 16:21, The Doctor wrote:
About time these abusers are put to book!
Seem's Abavia (reseller?) same SPAM flood coming from. Spamming 2 hy,
de.* and other's.
See this Message-Id: <6e31d408-1@bea-48dd-b68d-24e5731d9711>
My "junk" group it's full of this...
Sincerely
--
Ivo Gandolfo
And clc is really getting junked!
On 09/10/2023 16:54, The Doctor wrote:
And clc is really getting junked!
Hello all,
I just wrote an email to the Abavia and Highwinds Media abusedesk, let's
see if they reply something, or if they don't care at all.
If they don't respond we could directly propose a UDP against all these providers (GGroups, Abavia, Hmedia etc).
That means an UDP against 17 of the current Top 20 on http://top1000.anthologeek.net/.
How realistic is that? BTW, blocking the niptide from Abavia is trivial:
bad_from:
.*\@novella\.org
* Ivo Gandolfo wrote:
On 09/10/2023 16:54, The Doctor wrote:
And clc is really getting junked!
Hello all,
I just wrote an email to the Abavia and Highwinds Media abusedesk, let's
see if they reply something, or if they don't care at all.
If they don't respond we could directly propose a UDP against all these
providers (GGroups, Abavia, Hmedia etc).
That means an UDP against 17 of the current Top 20 on >http://top1000.anthologeek.net/.
How realistic is that? BTW, blocking the niptide from Abavia is trivial:
bad_from:
.*\@novella\.org
--
Too many ingredients in the soup, no room for a spoon.
https://www.eternal-september.org
On 09/10/2023 16:54, The Doctor wrote:
And clc is really getting junked!
Hello all,
I just wrote an email to the Abavia and Highwinds Media abusedesk, let's
see if they reply something, or if they don't care at all.
If they don't respond we could directly propose a UDP against all these >providers (GGroups, Abavia, Hmedia etc).
Sincerely
--
Ivo Gandolfo
On 09/10/2023 20:57, Ray Banana wrote:
That means an UDP against 17 of the current Top 20 on >http://top1000.anthologeek.net/.
How realistic is that? BTW, blocking the niptide from Abavia is trivial:
bad_from:
.*\@novella\.org
I'm realistic. The path to filter it's not 17, but just 4.
And no one are RFC8315-compliant. That's so easy. Any UDP 8active or
passive) are much realistic.
And those who are old like me will remember the same discussion that
took place first in 1990, and then in 1996, only that the topic was the
IRC network. First it was ERIS, then it was ANet and EFnet. IRCnet and
DALnet were born from the offshoot of EFnet.
So nothing is impossible, you just need to want it, and the admins are >determined.
If the newsadmins on a voluntary basis filtered (actively or passively)
the servers that are not active in management (i.e. they do not respond
to emails etc.), these servers would have an "island" functioning and
this in the long run would certainly not benefit their business. Just
hit them in the wallet. When their users realize that they can no longer >reach anyone from those servers they will have 2 solutions: if they are >paying for the tracks they will stay there, the others will look for
another server.
Two separate Usenets will be born. Will this be bad? Depends. I do not
think so. There will be a Usenet just for binaries, and a Usenet with
the main values for which it was born. I'd like to see how it turns out.
Ray the smaller servers are the majority. I agree that those providers
convey approximately 50% of current Usenet, but if you remove alt.bin*
and alt.pic* what remains is less than 15% (statistics taken from my
server, I have a fullfeed including binaries :)).
Sincerely
--
Ivo Gandolfo
Spamflood comp.lag.c getting to be intolerable.
Spamflood comp.lag.c getting to be intolerable.
In article <wwvcyxpe8br.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>,
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> writes:
[FU2]
Le 08/10/2023 à 09:52, candycanearter07 a écrit :
Is Google *really* the monopoly for Usenet? It seems like most real
users avoid it.
According to the stats, it's Highwinds Media :
http://top1000.anthologeek.net/top1000.current.txt
Not sure if it's better :)
That tells you more about propagation than end users. I think Highwinds
are focussed on binaries, too.
Based on the subset of text Usenet I carry, Google represents a huge
chunk of the posting user base.
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/agents-summary.html
(I should make the table report percentages, and there’s some versions
to combine too...)
I have nothing against highwinds as long as they do not give peering to Google!
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b >An oil stain on the carpet is not removed by picking up the litter.
-unknown Beware https://mindspring.com
[FU2]
Le 10/10/2023 a 17:16, doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) a ecrit :
Spamflood comp.lag.c getting to be intolerable.
Can't see anything here, except people complaining about spam : >http://news2.nemoweb.net/?Newsgroup=comp.lang.c
On 2023-10-10, D <J@M> wrote:
at this writing, using freeware 40tude Dialog to demote *googlegroups.com* >> message-id and reference headers to -9999 instead of simply deleting them, >> and using local system time(00:00-24:00|MT/UT-7) for daily/monthly totals, >> since the beginning of this year 1 Jan 2023, totals from googlegroups.com:
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block
all google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN
and works wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Thanks in advance.
ReK2
at this writing, using freeware 40tude Dialog to demote *googlegroups.com* message-id and reference headers to -9999 instead of simply deleting them, and using local system time(00:00-24:00|MT/UT-7) for daily/monthly totals, since the beginning of this year 1 Jan 2023, totals from googlegroups.com:
Per http://www.mixmin.net/cleanfeed/files.html, you just need to add
google-groups.googlegroups.com
to the end of /etc/news/cleanfeed/etc/bad_paths. This should get re-read automatically after a while, but if you're impatient you should be able
to do this to reload it now:
ctlinnd reload filter.perl killing google groups
The documentation for cleanfeed is pretty good. These are not magical incantations. I did this yesterday and it has been a massive
improvement.
On 2023-10-10, D <J@M> wrote:
at this writing, using freeware 40tude Dialog to demote *googlegroups.com* >> message-id and reference headers to -9999 instead of simply deleting them, >> and using local system time(00:00-24:00|MT/UT-7) for daily/monthly totals, >> since the beginning of this year 1 Jan 2023, totals from googlegroups.com:
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block
all google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN
and works wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Thanks in advance.
ReK2
--
- {gemini,https}://{,rek2.}hispagatos.org - mastodon: @rek2@hispagatos.space >- [https|gemini]://2600.Madrid - https://hispagatos.space/@rek2
- https://keyoxide.org/A31C7CE19D9C58084EA42BA26C0B0D11E9303EC5
Per http://www.mixmin.net/cleanfeed/files.html, you just need to add
google-groups.googlegroups.com
to the end of /etc/news/cleanfeed/etc/bad_paths. This should get re-read
automatically after a while, but if you're impatient you should be able
to do this to reload it now:
ctlinnd reload filter.perl killing google groups
The documentation for cleanfeed is pretty good. These are not magical
incantations. I did this yesterday and it has been a massive
improvement.
Thank you John!
I just add this and reloaded,
and thanks again I am one of those bookworms and live in man pages and
RFC's but I am a new admin since around July this year and installed >cleanfeed around 2 weeks a go, and there is a ton of information to >learn/read and I been step by step doing so, but this issue with
google groups was annoying me and my users.
Thanks again
ReK2
--
- {gemini,https}://{,rek2.}hispagatos.org - mastodon: @rek2@hispagatos.space >- [https|gemini]://2600.Madrid - https://hispagatos.space/@rek2
- https://keyoxide.org/A31C7CE19D9C58084EA42BA26C0B0D11E9303EC5
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block
all google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN
and works wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Thanks in advance.
ReK2
I have a half-decent bad_From but it is not keeping up.
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block
all google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN
and works wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Thanks in advance.
ReK2
I have a half-decent bad_From but it is not keeping up.
Thanks Doctor, I just went ahead with someone suggestions and just blocked all >google-groups 24 hours a go and is being soooo much better :)
I should had done it before :D
Happy Hacking
ReK2
--
- {gemini,https}://{,rek2.}hispagatos.org - mastodon: @rek2@hispagatos.space >- [https|gemini]://2600.Madrid - https://hispagatos.space/@rek2
- https://keyoxide.org/A31C7CE19D9C58084EA42BA26C0B0D11E9303EC5
In article <ug41ml$2ei48$2@matrix.hispagatos.org>,
rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.org> wrote:
Per http://www.mixmin.net/cleanfeed/files.html, you just need to add
google-groups.googlegroups.com
to the end of /etc/news/cleanfeed/etc/bad_paths. This should get re-read >>> automatically after a while, but if you're impatient you should be able
to do this to reload it now:
ctlinnd reload filter.perl killing google groups
The documentation for cleanfeed is pretty good. These are not magical
incantations. I did this yesterday and it has been a massive
improvement.
Thank you John!
I just add this and reloaded,
and thanks again I am one of those bookworms and live in man pages and >>RFC's but I am a new admin since around July this year and installed >>cleanfeed around 2 weeks a go, and there is a ton of information to >>learn/read and I been step by step doing so, but this issue with
google groups was annoying me and my users.
Thanks again
ReK2
The other way is in your innd newsfeeds files just do
ME/google-groups.googlegroups.com:\
It is time to unanimously support UDP google-groups.googlegroups.com
The dejanews archive is dead!
...
--
- {gemini,https}://{,rek2.}hispagatos.org - mastodon: @rek2@hispagatos.space >>- [https|gemini]://2600.Madrid - https://hispagatos.space/@rek2 >>- https://keyoxide.org/A31C7CE19D9C58084EA42BA26C0B0D11E9303EC5
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b >A position unevaluated more than likely will leave us looking like
fools. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:59:40 +0000, rek2 hispagatos wrote:
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block all
google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN and
works wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Thanks in advance.
ReK2
Nope but for those who use DNews -> filter.rul, add googlegrops.com into
"Bad Injection Host"
googlegroups UDP accepted, supported, and enacted on news.ausics.net
fuck the turds.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 01:41:51 +1000, noel wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:59:40 +0000, rek2 hispagatos wrote:
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block all
google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN and
works wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Thanks in advance.
ReK2
Nope but for those who use DNews -> filter.rul, add googlegrops.com
into "Bad Injection Host"
googlegroups UDP accepted, supported, and enacted on news.ausics.net
fuck the turds.
googlegroups.om even,, aahhh you know the drill.....
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block all
google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN and works wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Thanks in advance.
ReK2
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:59:40 +0000, rek2 hispagatos wrote:
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block all
google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN and works
wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Thanks in advance.
ReK2
Nope but for those who use DNews -> filter.rul, add googlegrops.com into
"Bad Injection Host"
googlegroups UDP accepted, supported, and enacted on news.ausics.net
fuck the turds.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:59:40 +0000, rek2 hispagatos wrote:
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block all
google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN and
works wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Thanks in advance.
ReK2
Nope but for those who use DNews -> filter.rul, add googlegrops.com into
"Bad Injection Host"
googlegroups UDP accepted, supported, and enacted on news.ausics.net
f*k the turds.
googlegroups.om even,, aahhh you know the drill.....
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 01:41:51 +1000, noel wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:59:40 +0000, rek2 hispagatos wrote:
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block all >>>> google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN and
works wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Thanks in advance.
ReK2
Nope but for those who use DNews -> filter.rul, add googlegrops.com
into "Bad Injection Host"
googlegroups UDP accepted, supported, and enacted on news.ausics.net
f*k the turds.
googlegroups.om even,, aahhh you know the drill.....
maybe i shuldnt type mesgs at 2am saturfay morning whiulst pissed but
yeah, its correct in filter.rul lol
In article <65296570$1@news.ausics.net>, noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote: >>On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 01:41:51 +1000, noel wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:59:40 +0000, rek2 hispagatos wrote:googlegroups.om even,, aahhh you know the drill.....
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block all >>>> google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN andNope but for those who use DNews -> filter.rul, add googlegrops.com into >>> "Bad Injection Host"
works wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Thanks in advance.
ReK2
googlegroups UDP accepted, supported, and enacted on news.ausics.net
f*k the turds.
.om ?
Om (or Aum) (listen?; Sanskrit: ?, ???, romanized: Om) is a symbol >representing a sacred sound, syllable, mantra, and an invocation in >Hinduism.[1][2] Its written representation is one of the most important >symbols of Hinduism.[3] It is variously said to be the essence of the[end quoted excerpt]
supreme Absolute,[2] consciousness,[4][5][6] Atman, Brahman, or the
cosmic world.[7][8][9] In Indic traditions, Om serves as a sonic >representation of the divine, a standard of Vedic authority and a
central aspect of soteriological doctrines and practices.[10] The
syllable is often found at the beginning and the end of chapters in
the Vedas, the Upanishads, and other Hindu texts.[9]
Om emerged in the Vedic corpus and is said to be an encapsulated form
of Samavedic chants or songs.[10][1] It is a sacred spiritual incantation >made before and during the recitation of spiritual texts, during puja and >private prayers, in ceremonies of rites of passage (samskara) such as >weddings, and during meditative and spiritual activities such as Pranava >yoga.[11][12] It is part of the iconography found in ancient and medieval
era manuscripts, temples, monasteries, and spiritual retreats in Hinduism, >Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.[13][14] As a syllable, it is often chanted >either independently or before a spiritual recitation and during meditation >in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.[15][16]
The syllable Om is also referred to as Onkara (Omkara) and Pranava among
many other names.[17][18]
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:59:40 +0000, rek2 hispagatos wrote:
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block all
google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN and works
wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Nope but for those who use DNews -> filter.rul, add googlegrops.com into
"Bad Injection Host"
googlegroups UDP accepted, supported, and enacted on news.ausics.net
noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:59:40 +0000, rek2 hispagatos wrote:
Any of you have a entry I can add to cleanfeed or INN 2.x to block all
google groups originating posts? I have it locally for my SLRN and works >>> wonders but we want to do it at server level.
Nope but for those who use DNews -> filter.rul, add googlegrops.com into
"Bad Injection Host"
googlegroups UDP accepted, supported, and enacted on news.ausics.net
Ah, right. I guess I won't see a reply to the Google Groups post
I just replied to then.
But fair enough I suppose. I was filtering the Thai spam out fairly
well at my end in Tin, but it's still a lot of junk clogging up
your server.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
The Doctor wrote:
<snip/>
But fair enough I suppose. I was filtering the Thai spam out fairly well >>>at my end in Tin, but it's still a lot of junk clogging up your server.Exactly why Google Groups need to be depeered!
In fact Google if they no address this issue will see all their servers
crash to an end!
No, they won't. You underestimate Google's power; they are _not_ going to >have any significant crash because of just spam.
--
<snip/>
But fair enough I suppose. I was filtering the Thai spam out fairly wellExactly why Google Groups need to be depeered!
at my end in Tin, but it's still a lot of junk clogging up your server.
In fact Google if they no address this issue will see all their servers
crash to an end!
The Doctor wrote:
<snip/>
But fair enough I suppose. I was filtering the Thai spam out fairly well >>>at my end in Tin, but it's still a lot of junk clogging up your server.Exactly why Google Groups need to be depeered!
In fact Google if they no address this issue will see all their servers
crash to an end!
No, they won't. You underestimate Google's power; they are _not_ going to >have any significant crash because of just spam.
In article <pan$4722b$91e84277$b6b2a239$dde130e2@invalid.invalid>, Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
<snip/>
But fair enough I suppose. I was filtering the Thai spam out fairly well >>>>at my end in Tin, but it's still a lot of junk clogging up your server. >>>>Exactly why Google Groups need to be depeered!
In fact Google if they no address this issue will see all their servers
crash to an end!
No, they won't. You underestimate Google's power; they are _not_ going to >>have any significant crash because of just spam.
And when you flood and overload?
The Doctor wrote:
In article <pan$4722b$91e84277$b6b2a239$dde130e2@invalid.invalid>,
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:And when you flood and overload?
<snip/>No, they won't. You underestimate Google's power; they are _not_ going to >>>have any significant crash because of just spam.
But fair enough I suppose. I was filtering the Thai spam out fairly well >>>>>at my end in Tin, but it's still a lot of junk clogging up your server. >>>> Exactly why Google Groups need to be depeered!In fact Google if they no address this issue will see all their servers >>>> crash to an end!
Do you think Ray (eternal-september.org) or myself (i2pn2.org) or other admins >have more powerful servers than Google does? Our servers are running fine with >the spam, including the processing to then block the spam.
Google does not even notice (or seemingly care) about the spam originating >from google-groups.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <pan$4722b$91e84277$b6b2a239$dde130e2@invalid.invalid>,
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
<snip/>
But fair enough I suppose. I was filtering the Thai spam out fairly well >>>>>at my end in Tin, but it's still a lot of junk clogging up your server. >>>>>Exactly why Google Groups need to be depeered!
In fact Google if they no address this issue will see all their servers >>>> crash to an end!
No, they won't. You underestimate Google's power; they are _not_ going to >>>have any significant crash because of just spam.
And when you flood and overload?
Do you think Ray (eternal-september.org) or myself (i2pn2.org) or other >admins have more powerful servers than Google does? Our servers are
running fine with the spam, including the processing to then block the
spam.
Google does not even notice (or seemingly care) about the spam
originating from google-groups.
--
Retro Guy
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 13:20:39 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >Doctor) wrote:
In article <5c3c2064d41d88aeac2adab7d67c096e@news.novabbs.org>,snip
Google does not even notice (or seemingly care) about the spam >>>originating from google-groups.
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal with
abusers in their system.
psychic mind readers seem to know what everyone is thinking, often
emulating unfounded narratives rooted in urban legend, apologetics
in defense of inherently indefensible schizophrenic human behavior
In article <5c3c2064d41d88aeac2adab7d67c096e@news.novabbs.org>,snip
Google does not even notice (or seemingly care) about the spam
originating from google-groups.
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal with
abusers in their system.
In article <5c3c2064d41d88aeac2adab7d67c096e@news.novabbs.org>,
Retro Guy <retro.guy@rocksolidbbs.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <pan$4722b$91e84277$b6b2a239$dde130e2@invalid.invalid>,
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
<snip/>
But fair enough I suppose. I was filtering the Thai spam out fairly well >>>>>>at my end in Tin, but it's still a lot of junk clogging up your server. >>>>>>Exactly why Google Groups need to be depeered!
In fact Google if they no address this issue will see all their servers >>>>> crash to an end!
No, they won't. You underestimate Google's power; they are _not_ going to >>>>have any significant crash because of just spam.
And when you flood and overload?
Do you think Ray (eternal-september.org) or myself (i2pn2.org) or other >>admins have more powerful servers than Google does? Our servers are
running fine with the spam, including the processing to then block the >>spam.
Same here and the Servers have been running since 2016.
Google does not even notice (or seemingly care) about the spam
originating from google-groups.
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal with
abusers in their system.
I did try nocem and suddenly the junk came in from google groups
for comp.lang.c
Think I will just stick to
ME/groups-google.google.com, ...
Do you think Ray (eternal-september.org) or myself (i2pn2.org) or other admins have more powerful servers than Google does? Our servers are running fine with the spam, including the processing to then block the spam.
Google does not even notice (or seemingly care) about the spam originating from google-groups.
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal with
abusers in their system.
on behalf of the devil's advocate, no one of consequence noticed the
great leader that made the 1938 cover of time magazine, either . . .
Syber Shock wrote:
Be careful not to poke the bear. The purple-haired Google vegan skinny-jeans mafia might come after you.
They might shell your house with yogurt and tofu and lettuce greens
and other weapons of rabbit destruction.
What in the g*****n f**k are you talking about?
The Doctor wrote:
In article <5c3c2064d41d88aeac2adab7d67c096e@news.novabbs.org>,
Retro Guy <retro.guy@rocksolidbbs.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <pan$4722b$91e84277$b6b2a239$dde130e2@invalid.invalid>,
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
<snip/>
But fair enough I suppose. I was filtering the Thai spam out fairly well >>>>>>>at my end in Tin, but it's still a lot of junk clogging up your server. >>>>>>>Exactly why Google Groups need to be depeered!
In fact Google if they no address this issue will see all their servers >>>>>> crash to an end!
No, they won't. You underestimate Google's power; they are _not_ going to >>>>>have any significant crash because of just spam.
And when you flood and overload?
Do you think Ray (eternal-september.org) or myself (i2pn2.org) or other >>>admins have more powerful servers than Google does? Our servers are >>>running fine with the spam, including the processing to then block the >>>spam.
Same here and the Servers have been running since 2016.
Google does not even notice (or seemingly care) about the spam >>>originating from google-groups.
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal with
abusers in their system.
I did try nocem and suddenly the junk came in from google groups
for comp.lang.c
Think I will just stick to
ME/groups-google.google.com, ...
Since NoCeM removes the posts after they have arrived, you should expect
to see them for a short time, until they are removed.
--
Retro Guy
Retro Guy <retro.guy@rocksolidbbs.com> wrote:
Do you think Ray (eternal-september.org) or myself (i2pn2.org) or other >admins have more powerful servers than Google does? Our servers arerunning fine with the spam, including the processing to then block the
spam.
Google has seemingly endless resources to devote to many projects, but they >devote as few resources as possible to Google Groups. However, they devote >far much more computer power than human power to it.
Google does not even notice (or seemingly care) about the spamoriginating from google-groups.
I don't think there is actually anyone running Google Groups, and if there >is, it's not anyone who knows about Usenet. It acts as if it is running >completely unattended. Back when it was new, there were a lot of people >actively managing it but this is no longer the case and honestly that is
the problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal with
abusers in their system.
They haven't so far. What leads you to think that will change? I don't >think anyone in Google management even remembers that Google Groups exists.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
In article <ugel6b$27r$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Retro Guy <retro.guy@rocksolidbbs.com> wrote:
Do you think Ray (eternal-september.org) or myself (i2pn2.org) or other >>admins have more powerful servers than Google does? Our servers arerunning fine with the spam, including the processing to then block the >>spam.
Google has seemingly endless resources to devote to many projects, but they >>devote as few resources as possible to Google Groups. However, they devote >>far much more computer power than human power to it.
Google does not even notice (or seemingly care) about the spamoriginating from google-groups.
I don't think there is actually anyone running Google Groups, and if there >>is, it's not anyone who knows about Usenet. It acts as if it is running >>completely unattended. Back when it was new, there were a lot of people >>actively managing it but this is no longer the case and honestly that is >>the problem.
Let's not feed GG and let us not get a feed from them!
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:07:32 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >Doctor) wrote:
In article <ugel6b$27r$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Retro Guy <retro.guy@rocksolidbbs.com> wrote:
Do you think Ray (eternal-september.org) or myself (i2pn2.org) or other >>>admins have more powerful servers than Google does? Our servers are >>>running fine with the spam, including the processing to then block the >>>spam.Google has seemingly endless resources to devote to many projects, but they >>>devote as few resources as possible to Google Groups. However, they devote >>>far much more computer power than human power to it.
Google does not even notice (or seemingly care) about the spam >>>originating from google-groups.I don't think there is actually anyone running Google Groups, and if there >>>is, it's not anyone who knows about Usenet. It acts as if it is running >>>completely unattended. Back when it was new, there were a lot of people >>>actively managing it but this is no longer the case and honestly that is >>>the problem.
Let's not feed GG and let us not get a feed from them!
but as the psychic neutral observers have repeatedly confirmed, no one at >google knows about usenet or if their top-secret googlegroups.com servers
are simply running all by themselves. . . like an artificial intelligence >experiment that isn't causing any disruption or anything like that, right? >nothing to see here . . . keep moving . . . keep moving . . . keep moving
I don't think there is actually anyone running Google Groups, and if there is, it's not anyone who knows about Usenet. It acts as if it is running completely unattended. Back when it was new, there were a lot of people actively managing it but this is no longer the case and honestly that is
the problem.
On 14 Oct 2023 18:03:55 -0000
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
I don't think there is actually anyone running Google Groups, and if there >> is, it's not anyone who knows about Usenet. It acts as if it is running
completely unattended. Back when it was new, there were a lot of people
actively managing it but this is no longer the case and honestly that is
the problem.
I think someone does modify googlegroups code every now and again. For >example at some point in the last 6 months replies on googlegroups started >messing up code indentation. In the last few weeks there was a period of a >few days where a weird bug appeared where for people posting through >googlegroups , instead of the name of the poster , the name of the group >appeared. Example : <9cd51788-b164-4ecc-8360-210baab16a99n@googlegroups.com>
Whoever does these modifications is either incompetent or , more likely , >devotes very little time and attention to the modifications or testing them. >It's like every now and again some Google programmer devotes a few minutes of >work time to make some modifications to googlegroups code. The motivation is >a mystery. It's not as if usenet standards changed recently and googlegroups >needs to be updated to conform.
The fact that someone devoted enough attention to googlegroups to make such >(bad) modifications but not any time to do anything about the spam , makes >the whole situation even more mysterious.
Completely unrelated to the above but here's an interesting new variation on >the spam : <ce655205-8e53-4b22-9048-89bef181d13dn@googlegroups.com> .
Whoever does these modifications is either incompetent or , more likely , >devotes very little time and attention to the modifications or testing them. >It's like every now and again some Google programmer devotes a few minutes of >work time to make some modifications to googlegroups code. The motivation is >a mystery. It's not as if usenet standards changed recently and googlegroups >needs to be updated to conform.
The fact that someone devoted enough attention to googlegroups to make such >(bad) modifications but not any time to do anything about the spam , makes >the whole situation even more mysterious.
Completely unrelated to the above but here's an interesting new variation on >the spam : <ce655205-8e53-4b22-9048-89bef181d13dn@googlegroups.com> .
In article <ugel99$obi$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal with
abusers in their system.
They haven't so far. What leads you to think that will change? I don't >>think anyone in Google management even remembers that Google Groups exists.
Server crashing due to overload!
In article <ugfe1q$104k$9@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <ugel99$obi$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:Server crashing due to overload!
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal with
abusers in their system.
They haven't so far. What leads you to think that will change? I don't >>>think anyone in Google management even remembers that Google Groups exists. >>
You do realize that the vast majority of what is passed around on usenet by >volume are binaries? For Google, a few thousand spam ads for Indian >astrologers of a few KB each are a drop in the bucket and not even a >measurable load. For the people on comp.os.vms, the are a total disruption.
Google Groups, as I have said, has seemingly infinite compute resources but a >shortage of human beings.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
You do realize that the vast majority of what is passed around on
usenet by volume are binaries? For Google, a few thousand spam ads
for Indian astrologers of a few KB each are a drop in the bucket and
not even a measurable load. For the people on comp.os.vms, the are a
total disruption.
Google Groups, as I have said, has seemingly infinite compute
resources but a shortage of human beings. --scott
In article <8e30bac9b614313bde7f8dcf8173fd68@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:snip
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 01:07:32 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >>Doctor) wrote:
In article <ugel6b$27r$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
but as the psychic neutral observers have repeatedly confirmed, no one at >>google knows about usenet or if their top-secret googlegroups.com servers >>are simply running all by themselves. . . like an artificial intelligence >>experiment that isn't causing any disruption or anything like that, right? >>nothing to see here . . . keep moving . . . keep moving . . . keep movingI don't think there is actually anyone running Google Groups, and if there >>>>is, it's not anyone who knows about Usenet. It acts as if it is running >>>>completely unattended. Back when it was new, there were a lot of people >>>>actively managing it but this is no longer the case and honestly that is >>>>the problem.Let's not feed GG and let us not get a feed from them!
And eventually google servers and network will crash dueto abuse!
I think someone does modify googlegroups code every now and again. For example at some point in the last 6 months replies on googlegroups started messing up code indentation. In the last few weeks there was a period of a few days where a weird bug appeared where for people posting through googlegroups , instead of the name of the poster , the name of the group appeared. Example : <9cd51788-b164-4ecc-8360-210baab16a99n@googlegroups.com>
The fact that someone devoted enough attention to googlegroups to make such >(bad) modifications but not any time to do anything about the spam , makes >the whole situation even more mysterious.
Le 15/10/2023 à 13:21, Spiros Bousbouras a écrit :
I think someone does modify googlegroups code every now and again. For
example at some point in the last 6 months replies on googlegroups started >> messing up code indentation. In the last few weeks there was a period of a >> few days where a weird bug appeared where for people posting through
googlegroups , instead of the name of the poster , the name of the group
appeared. Example : <9cd51788-b164-4ecc-8360-210baab16a99n@googlegroups.com>
Oh yes, I saw that, luckily they reverted it, but it was kind of practical
to spot GG users.
I think someone does modify googlegroups code every now and again. For
example at some point in the last 6 months replies on googlegroups started >>> messing up code indentation. In the last few weeks there was a period of a >>> few days where a weird bug appeared where for people posting through
googlegroups , instead of the name of the poster , the name of the group >>> appeared. Example : <9cd51788-b164-4ecc-8360-210baab16a99n@googlegroups.com>
Oh yes, I saw that, luckily they reverted it, but it was kind of practical >> to spot GG users.
users or abusers?
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
You do realize that the vast majority of what is passed around on
usenet by volume are binaries? For Google, a few thousand spam ads
for Indian astrologers of a few KB each are a drop in the bucket and
not even a measurable load. For the people on comp.os.vms, the are a
total disruption.
Google Groups, as I have said, has seemingly infinite compute
resources but a shortage of human beings. --scott
I don’t think Google carries binaries, though agreed that they are
probably not really inconvenienced by a bit of spam.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Le 15/10/2023 à 20:18, doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) a écrit :
I think someone does modify googlegroups code every now and again. For >>>> example at some point in the last 6 months replies on googlegroups started >>>> messing up code indentation. In the last few weeks there was a period of a >>>> few days where a weird bug appeared where for people posting through
googlegroups , instead of the name of the poster , the name of the group >>>> appeared. Example : <9cd51788-b164-4ecc-8360-210baab16a99n@googlegroups.com>
Oh yes, I saw that, luckily they reverted it, but it was kind of practical >>> to spot GG users.
users or abusers?
On the fr.* hierarchy we have regular users with Google Groups, but we try
to teach them that it's not the way :)
In article <ugel99$obi$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal with
abusers in their system.
They haven't so far. What leads you to think that will change? I don't
think anyone in Google management even remembers that Google Groups exists.
Server crashing due to overload!
On 15/10/2023 02:08, The Doctor wrote:
In article <ugel99$obi$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal with
abusers in their system.
They haven't so far. What leads you to think that will change? I don't >>> think anyone in Google management even remembers that Google Groups exists. >>
Server crashing due to overload!
It won't, though. If they can't process 90% of page requests in <5ms,
then they'll spin up more compute and update their load-balancers. No
human intervention involved. And, being Google, the extra cost is
basically zero.
In article <ugisva$193fj$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Harnden <nospam.harnden@invalid.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 02:08, The Doctor wrote:
In article <ugel99$obi$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:Server crashing due to overload!
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal withThey haven't so far. What leads you to think that will change? I don't >>>> think anyone in Google management even remembers that Google Groups exists.
abusers in their system.
It won't, though. If they can't process 90% of page requests in <5ms,
then they'll spin up more compute and update their load-balancers. No >>human intervention involved. And, being Google, the extra cost is >>basically zero.
Ugh And then from my daily stats
Unwanted sites in Path header field [Top 20]:
Site Count
google-groups.googlegroups.com 40001
news.neodome.net 1032
news.mixmin.net 649
news.newsdemon.com 243
TOTAL: 4 41925
INND Perl filter [Top 20]:
Reason Count
EMP (md5) 293
Too many newsgroups 229
User-issued cancel 28
Too many newsgroups (meow) 19
HTML Multipart 12
Banned From (<peescent@qmail.net>) 12
Banned Reply-To (peescent@pooscent.net) 2
Subject (LSD 25 Blotter 155µg USA | Order LSD Sheet Online) 2
Subject (LSDLAWGM3LX4LU3KJ45P3Y5TGC5WOQ-17] yen) 1
Subject (LSDLAWGM3LX4LU3KJ45P3Y5TGC5WOQ-16] yen) 1
Subject (LSDLAWGM3LX4LU3KJ45P3Y5TGC5WOQ-2] yen) 1
Subject (LSD3A7VE3SONLADMC5C45CXGIF654DWZEZWA-7] yen) 1
Subject (LSD5GUWJTL6QJU7IUB7Z2A-18] yen) 1
Subject (LSDLAWGM3LX4LU3KJ45P3Y5TGC5WOQ-15] yen) 1
Subject (LSDIQMDW5IK4J6ANEHQ-13] yen) 1
Subject (LSD5GUWJTL6QJU7IUB7Z2A-7] yen) 1
Subject (LSDLAWGM3LX4LU3KJ45P3Y5TGC5WOQ-19] yen) 1
Subject (LSD5GUWJTL6QJU7IUB7Z2A-15] yen) 1
Subject (LSD3A7VE3SONLADMC5C45CXGIF654DWZEZWA-5] yen) 1
Subject (LSDLAWGM3LX4LU3KJ45P3Y5TGC5WOQ-5] yen) 1
TOTAL: 88 677
Given 1440 minutes in a day
40001/1440
~27.77847222222222222222
?
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:50:33 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >Doctor) wrote:
In article <ugisva$193fj$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Harnden <nospam.harnden@invalid.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 02:08, The Doctor wrote:
In article <ugel99$obi$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:Server crashing due to overload!
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal withThey haven't so far. What leads you to think that will change? I don't >>>>> think anyone in Google management even remembers that Google Groups exists.
abusers in their system.
It won't, though. If they can't process 90% of page requests in <5ms, >>>then they'll spin up more compute and update their load-balancers. No >>>human intervention involved. And, being Google, the extra cost is >>>basically zero.
Ugh And then from my daily stats
Unwanted sites in Path header field [Top 20]:
Site Count
google-groups.googlegroups.com 40001
news.neodome.net 1032
news.mixmin.net 649
news.newsdemon.com 243
TOTAL: 4 41925
INND Perl filter [Top 20]:
Reason Count
EMP (md5) 293
Too many newsgroups 229
User-issued cancel 28
Too many newsgroups (meow) 19
HTML Multipart 12
Banned From (<peescent@qmail.net>) 12
Banned Reply-To (peescent@pooscent.net) 2
Subject (LSD 25 Blotter 155µg USA | Order LSD Sheet Online) 2
Subject (LSDLAWGM3LX4LU3KJ45P3Y5TGC5WOQ-17] yen) 1
Subject (LSDLAWGM3LX4LU3KJ45P3Y5TGC5WOQ-16] yen) 1
Subject (LSDLAWGM3LX4LU3KJ45P3Y5TGC5WOQ-2] yen) 1
Subject (LSD3A7VE3SONLADMC5C45CXGIF654DWZEZWA-7] yen) 1
Subject (LSD5GUWJTL6QJU7IUB7Z2A-18] yen) 1
Subject (LSDLAWGM3LX4LU3KJ45P3Y5TGC5WOQ-15] yen) 1
Subject (LSDIQMDW5IK4J6ANEHQ-13] yen) 1
Subject (LSD5GUWJTL6QJU7IUB7Z2A-7] yen) 1
Subject (LSDLAWGM3LX4LU3KJ45P3Y5TGC5WOQ-19] yen) 1
Subject (LSD5GUWJTL6QJU7IUB7Z2A-15] yen) 1
Subject (LSD3A7VE3SONLADMC5C45CXGIF654DWZEZWA-5] yen) 1
Subject (LSDLAWGM3LX4LU3KJ45P3Y5TGC5WOQ-5] yen) 1
TOTAL: 88 677
Given 1440 minutes in a day
40001/1440
~27.77847222222222222222
google apologists are out in force ... mind readers ... pretenders
"They're here already! You're next! You're next!"
--Dr. Miles Bennell, Invasion of the Body Snatchers
ironically, Kevin McCarthy's parents both died of actual influenza
during the "Spanish Flu" pandemic of 1918 (Roy, aged 38; Tess, 29)
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> wrote:
?
It was a Dizum poster, pay no attention.
--
^^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator.
My pet rock Gordon just said maybe.
In article <23038244464b14dc3916420fbb5011b2@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:snip
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:50:33 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >>Doctor) wrote:
In article <ugisva$193fj$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Harnden <nospam.harnden@invalid.com> wrote:
On 15/10/2023 02:08, The Doctor wrote:Ugh And then from my daily stats
In article <ugel99$obi$1@panix2.panix.com>,It won't, though. If they can't process 90% of page requests in <5ms, >>>>then they'll spin up more compute and update their load-balancers. No >>>>human intervention involved. And, being Google, the extra cost is >>>>basically zero.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:Server crashing due to overload!
I mean that Google will suffer for neglecting to deal withThey haven't so far. What leads you to think that will change? I don't >>>>>> think anyone in Google management even remembers that Google Groups exists.
abusers in their system.
Unwanted sites in Path header field [Top 20]:
Site Count
google-groups.googlegroups.com 40001
news.neodome.net 1032
news.mixmin.net 649
news.newsdemon.com 243
TOTAL: 4 41925
INND Perl filter [Top 20]:
Reason Count
EMP (md5) 293
Too many newsgroups 229
User-issued cancel 28
Too many newsgroups (meow) 19
HTML Multipart 12
Banned From (<peescent@qmail.net>) 12
Banned Reply-To (peescent@pooscent.net) 2
Subject (LSD 25 Blotter 155µg USA | Order LSD Sheet Online) 2
TOTAL: 88 677
Given 1440 minutes in a day
40001/1440
~27.77847222222222222222
google apologists are out in force ... mind readers ... pretenders
"They're here already! You're next! You're next!"
--Dr. Miles Bennell, Invasion of the Body Snatchers
ironically, Kevin McCarthy's parents both died of actual influenza
during the "Spanish Flu" pandemic of 1918 (Roy, aged 38; Tess, 29)
Their minds must be nonexistant.
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 15:16:29 +0100
Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
If a GG user manages to find a technical group that hasn't been
flooded with spam, then they'd wonder why an otherwise active group
is completely ignoring them. I don't think whitelisting would be
fair.
Google groups users are the modern version of the September AOL users.
Nothing ironic about it. Many of Google services are good. Their email >service in particular is very good at filtering spam.
Hence it's a
mystery to me why they don't do the same with googlegroups.
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothing ironic about it. Many of Google services are good. Their email >service in particular is very good at filtering spam.
Their email service in particular is very good at rejecting or
deleting legitimate mail, especially if the admins of the delivering
systems dont jump through the burining hoops that google erects. This
works because their email service is too darn big to just say fuck
you.
Hence it's a
mystery to me why they don't do the same with googlegroups.
It would be work to not spam Usenet via googlegroups. Newsadmins don't
reject messages from google groups because they're too darn big to
just say fuck you.
See the parallels? Google doesn't care either way. They're too darn
big to care.
Greetings
Marc
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothing ironic about it. Many of Google services are good. Their email >>service in particular is very good at filtering spam.
Their email service in particular is very good at rejecting or
deleting legitimate mail, especially if the admins of the delivering
systems dont jump through the burining hoops that google erects. This
works because their email service is too darn big to just say fuck
you.
Hence it's a
mystery to me why they don't do the same with googlegroups.
It would be work to not spam Usenet via googlegroups. Newsadmins don't
reject messages from google groups because they're too darn big to
just say fuck you.
See the parallels? Google doesn't care either way. They're too darn
big to care.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- >Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header >Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Syber Shock <admin@sybershock.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 15:16:29 +0100
Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
If a GG user manages to find a technical group that hasn't been
flooded with spam, then they'd wonder why an otherwise active group
is completely ignoring them. I don't think whitelisting would be
fair.
Google groups users are the modern version of the September AOL users.
I disagree. The September AOL users were cluless and naive, annoying
because of their sheer numbers. The Google Groups Spammers are a
relatively small number, a serious provider would simply have them cut
off.
It is the problem that Google doesnt cut them off.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- >Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header >Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
Nothing ironic about it. Many of Google services are good. Their email
service in particular is very good at filtering spam.
My guess is that Google collates mail marked as spam by their users.
It would be simple to use those many user reports to feed their filters.
Their email service in particular is very good at rejecting or
deleting legitimate mail, especially if the admins of the delivering
systems dont jump through the burining hoops that google erects. This
works because their email service is too darn big to just say fuck
you.
I am not aware of any of my legitimate mail in any of my several Gmail >accounts having been lost or delayed.
Hence it's a
mystery to me why they don't do the same with googlegroups.
It would be work to not spam Usenet via googlegroups. Newsadmins don't
reject messages from google groups because they're too darn big to
just say fuck you.
See the parallels? Google doesn't care either way. They're too darn
big to care.
Quite likely so, although I think your analogy is weak.
News users don't automatically report spam.
Greetings
Marc
--
^^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator.
My pet rock Gordon just said maybe.
News users don't automatically report spam.
Do they know how?
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
Their email service in particular is very good at rejecting or
deleting legitimate mail, especially if the admins of the delivering
systems dont jump through the burining hoops that google erects. This
works because their email service is too darn big to just say fuck
you.
I am not aware of any of my legitimate mail in any of my several Gmail >accounts having been lost or delayed.
I am.
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
Their email service in particular is very good at rejecting or
deleting legitimate mail, especially if the admins of the delivering
systems dont jump through the burining hoops that google erects. This
works because their email service is too darn big to just say fuck
you.
I am not aware of any of my legitimate mail in any of my several Gmail >accounts having been lost or delayed.
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:YMMV! ≈:o)
I am not aware of any of my legitimate mail in any of my several GmailI am.
accounts having been lost or delayed.
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
[...]
News users don't automatically report spam.
Do they know how?
This News user doesn't know how to do that ~automatically.~
I do automatically report spam email delivered via Gmail by the simple
act of marking that bad email as spam in my email prog., so that it is >automatically moved to the Spam mailbox. Google would see that as a
matter of course. They don't get the same user feedback from a News
user.
--
^^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator.
My pet rock Gordon just said maybe.
jump through the burining hoops that google erects. This works because
their email service is too darn big to just say fuck you.
jump through the burining hoops that google erects. This works because
their email service is too darn big to just say f*k you.
It works becasue many - but not all - network admins, are gutless pricks
There are some of us out here that have the attitude "no-one is too big
to block" and proved it gmail has over the past several years been
blocked by us on a scaled basis, the last time was February this year
where they were ousted for 60 days, sure they wont care about our ~900K,
so do little, but if all or a majority of admins got off their pathetic
whiny arses and too a stand, then google will have to fix the spam issue
at gmail.
Thus spake snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
YMMV! ≈:o)
The receiver does not get notified, it's only the sender:
<ray.banana.rb@googlemail.com>: host
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[2607:f8b0:4004:c17::1a] said: 550-5.7.26
This mail has been blocked because the sender is unauthenticated.
550-5.7.26 Gmail requires all senders to authenticate with either
SPF or DKIM. 550-5.7.26 550-5.7.26 Authentication results:
550-5.7.26 DKIM = did not pass 550-5.7.26 SPF [raybanana.net] with
ip: [2a01:238:4322:f100:97c6:a04c:74ee:429e 550-5.7.26 ] = did not
pass 550-5.7.26 550-5.7.26 To mitigate this issue, please visit
Gmail's authentication guide 550-5.7.26 for instructions on setting
up authentication: 550 5.7.26
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126#authentication
g13-20020ac8580d000000b0041986eba0b0si3340575qtg.396 - gsmtp (in
reply to end of DATA command)
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
[...]
News users don't automatically report spam.
Do they know how?
This News user doesn't know how to do that ~automatically.~
I do automatically report spam email delivered via Gmail by the
simple act of marking that bad email as spam in my email prog., so
that it is automatically moved to the Spam mailbox. Google would
see that as a matter of course. They don't get the same user
feedback from a News user.
In article <6535bc4e$1@news.ausics.net>, noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote: >>On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 21:27:13 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
jump through the burining hoops that google erects. This works because
their email service is too darn big to just say f*k you.
It works becasue many - but not all - network admins, are gutless pricks
There are some of us out here that have the attitude "no-one is too big
to block" and proved it gmail has over the past several years been
blocked by us on a scaled basis, the last time was February this year
where they were ousted for 60 days, sure they wont care about our ~900K,
so do little, but if all or a majority of admins got off their pathetic >>whiny arses and too a stand, then google will have to fix the spam issue
at gmail.
There is
https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam
...dollars into fixed suspension...to offer you 20% of the total...[end spam snippets]
...the world today is full...drug addict...to set up my future...
...require from you is...payment on this transaction...keep silent...
...
...payment of...your information is...like to have some business...
Unfortunately, likely the most effective way for users to report
Google Groups spam is limited to those with Google Groups account, via
the lame Google Groups interface. While one my view the archive,
without logging into https://groups.google.com/, no one who is not
logged in may use Google's substantially b0ken reporting system.
Thus spake snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:YMMV! ?:o)
I am not aware of any of my legitimate mail in any of my several GmailI am.
accounts having been lost or delayed.
The receiver does not get notified, it's only the sender:
Le 23/10/2023 à 03:31, David Ritz a écrit :
Unfortunately, likely the most effective way for users to report
Google Groups spam is limited to those with Google Groups account, via
the lame Google Groups interface. While one my view the archive,
without logging into https://groups.google.com/, no one who is not
logged in may use Google's substantially b0ken reporting system.
Even with a Google account, I can tell you it almost never works, so as >useless as the rest.
Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> wrote:
Thus spake snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:YMMV! ?:o)
I am not aware of any of my legitimate mail in any of my several Gmail >>>> >accounts having been lost or delayed.I am.
The receiver does not get notified, it's only the sender:
That is rather new, and as log as Google doesn't document this
behavior (which they won't do, they don't document anything), I still
assume that my past experience is true that some legitimate messages
get accepted and then silently dropped.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:05:14 +0200, Marc Haber
<mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> wrote:
Thus spake snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:YMMV! ?:o)
I am not aware of any of my legitimate mail in any of my several Gmail >>>>> >accounts having been lost or delayed.I am.
The receiver does not get notified, it's only the sender:
That is rather new, and as log as Google doesn't document this
behavior (which they won't do, they don't document anything), I still >>assume that my past experience is true that some legitimate messages
get accepted and then silently dropped.
classified . . . sanitized . . . etc . . . after deja was eliminated
12 feb 2001 googlegroups was noticeably sporadic, hit and miss; by 29
Nov 2004 with their "beta", select articles that were not posted from >googlegroups became unsearchable even irretrievable if not by message
id (oftentimes that didn't work either); for outsiders, gg had become
for all practical purposes unusable; for insiders, gg became a weapon
In article <72abf0a401804562f015cac5c95a2fc2@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:05:14 +0200, Marc Haber >><mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> wrote:
Thus spake snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:YMMV! ?:o)
I am not aware of any of my legitimate mail in any of my several Gmail >>>>>> >accounts having been lost or delayed.I am.
The receiver does not get notified, it's only the sender:
That is rather new, and as log as Google doesn't document this
behavior (which they won't do, they don't document anything), I still >>>assume that my past experience is true that some legitimate messages
get accepted and then silently dropped.
classified . . . sanitized . . . etc . . . after deja was eliminated
12 feb 2001 googlegroups was noticeably sporadic, hit and miss; by 29
Nov 2004 with their "beta", select articles that were not posted from >>googlegroups became unsearchable even irretrievable if not by message
id (oftentimes that didn't work either); for outsiders, gg had become
for all practical purposes unusable; for insiders, gg became a weapon
This devolution is a real problem!
Le 05/10/2023 à 11:53, Marco Moock a écrit :
Tell them you are the reason why Alphanet is no longer online.
If a troll is the reason that an admin decides to discontinue the
service...
I think other reasons were also there.
For three years everyday LLP bullied Marc Schaefer, he put "Alfanet" in
his path to mock him and everyday he found something, with his three
friends with multiple identities they posted on fr.usenet.abus.d
thousands of messages. Now he's happy and he justs wants to take his
place, for everything. Plus, his pseudo wad first "La Libre Parole",
wich is an old antisemitic newspaper, altough he denies any link. Oh,
and he cancelled my messages with a VPN (but no other reason that I
cancelled spam), which he also denied, so I would not call him reliable,
he's using people for a unclear goal unless it gets clearer everyday.
And this is far for being an exhaustive list, just don't trust him.
Le 01/11/2023 10:02, pehache a crit :
I see that you are exporting your favorite defamation speech beyond fr.*
Just telling the truth,
he probably asked you to comme here and bully me, but people are
talking serious business here, so this is my last answer to you.
I see that you are exporting your favorite defamation speech beyond fr.*
Le 01/11/2023 à 10:02, pehache a écrit :
I see that you are exporting your favorite defamation speech beyond fr.*
Just telling the truth,
he probably asked you to comme here and bully
me,
but people are talking serious business here, so this is my last
answer to you.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:33:42 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,878 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
