"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support
new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and
new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching
of historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups
(at groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to
Usenet groups, or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view
and search for historical Usenet content posted before February 22,
2024 on Google Groups.
In addition, Google_s Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) server
and associated peering will no longer be available, meaning Google
will not support serving new Usenet content or exchanging content
with other NNTP servers.
This change will not impact any non-Usenet content on Google Groups, including all user and organization-created groups. Most of the
current Google Groups content is not Usenet content and will not be affected.
Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
Over the last several years, legitimate activity in text-based Usenet
groups has declined significantly because users have moved to more
modern technologies and formats such as social media and web-based
forums. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is
binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support,
as well as spam."
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the
least) in order to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet >content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content
from Usenet
peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be >supported as it is done today.
Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups (at >groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to
Usenet groups,
or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view and search for historical >Usenet content posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups.
In addition, Googles Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) server and >associated
peering will no longer be available, meaning Google will not support
serving new
Usenet content or exchanging content with other NNTP servers.
This change will not impact any non-Usenet content on Google Groups, including >all user and organization-created groups. Most of the current Google Groups >content is not Usenet content and will not be affected.
Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
Over the last several years, legitimate activity in text-based Usenet
groups has
declined significantly because users have moved to more modern
technologies and
formats such as social media and web-based forums. Much of the content being >disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google >Groups does not support, as well as spam."
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the least)
in order
to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)
Bring Back Jason Todd <bbjt@bbjt.com> wrote:
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support
new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and
new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching
of historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups
(at groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to
Usenet groups, or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view
and search for historical Usenet content posted before February 22,
2024 on Google Groups.
In addition, Google_s Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) server
and associated peering will no longer be available, meaning Google
will not support serving new Usenet content or exchanging content
with other NNTP servers.
This change will not impact any non-Usenet content on Google Groups,
including all user and organization-created groups. Most of the
current Google Groups content is not Usenet content and will not be
affected.
Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
Over the last several years, legitimate activity in text-based Usenet
groups has declined significantly because users have moved to more
modern technologies and formats such as social media and web-based
forums. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is
binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support,
as well as spam."
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the
least) in order to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.
"sorry to see them go", said no usenet admin.
--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23
[ Crossposting to news.admin.peering , it seems relevant enough. ]
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)
Bring Back Jason Todd <bbjt@bbjt.com> wrote:
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet
content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet
peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be
supported as it is done today.
[...]
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
Well , we knew it was coming. I have mixed feelings about it. I discovered usenet through googlegroups and for my first few years on usenet I was posting and reading through googlegroups so I'm not going to express unreserved joy. It's also a concern whether usenet will be able to get new (and young) users. But with the way things have been , it's for the best. Many newsservers which have become unusable (on some groups) because they don't filter any of the spam , will become usable again.
Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do something to warn them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist legitimate users who post through googlegroups.
Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content >from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data >will still be supported as it is done today.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
The bad news is that this search engine "may" stop working soon.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.software.nntp> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
etc.
Is it something we said?
*Please complain to Google about their spamming of Usenet* <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/hO4JNke1bNc>
--
Usenet is a team of intelligent old men working together for common good.
[ Crossposting to news.admin.peering , it seems relevant enough. ]
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)
Bring Back Jason Todd <bbjt@bbjt.com> wrote:
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer supportnew Usenet
content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new contentfrom Usenet
peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data willstill be
supported as it is done today.
[...]
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
Well , we knew it was coming. I have mixed feelings about it. I discovered >usenet through googlegroups and for my first few years on usenet I was >posting and reading through googlegroups so I'm not going to express >unreserved joy. It's also a concern whether usenet will be able to get new >(and young) users. But with the way things have been , it's for the best. >Many newsservers which have become unusable (on some groups) because they >don't filter any of the spam , will become usable again.
Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a >warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do something to warn >them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist legitimate users >who post through googlegroups.
--
"A great disturbance in the internets. It was like a million hentai lovers >voices crying out in unison, then suddenly silenced."
"automatedresponse"
www.reddit.com/r/promos/comments/6mtzb/time_warner_cable_to_block_all_usenet_access
On 15/12/2023 00:48, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
[ Crossposting to news.admin.peering , it seems relevant enough. ]new Usenet
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)
Bring Back Jason Todd <bbjt@bbjt.com> wrote:
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support
from Usenetcontent. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content
still bepeers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will
supported as it is done today.
[...]
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
Well , we knew it was coming. I have mixed feelings about it. I discovered >> usenet through googlegroups and for my first few years on usenet I was
posting and reading through googlegroups so I'm not going to express
unreserved joy. It's also a concern whether usenet will be able to get new >> (and young) users. But with the way things have been , it's for the best.
Many newsservers which have become unusable (on some groups) because they
don't filter any of the spam , will become usable again.
Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a
warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do something to warn
them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist legitimate users
who post through googlegroups.
Yes, there is a blue banner at the top saying:
"
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of >historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
"
And a link to their excuse.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 01:27:55 +0000
Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote:
On 15/12/2023 00:48, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
[...]
something to warnDoes anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a
warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do
legitimate usersthem. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist
who post through googlegroups.
Yes, there is a blue banner at the top saying:
"
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
"
And a link to their excuse.
At least they're doing something right.
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the least)
in order to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.
This is what you get when you cannot control spamtrollers!
Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
The bad news is that this search engine "may" stop working soon.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.software.nntp>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
etc.
Is it something we said?
*Please complain to Google about their spamming of Usenet*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/hO4JNke1bNc>
The bad news is that this search engine "may" stop working soon.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.software.nntp>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
etc.
We got to provide solutions our ourselves. This is the USENET spirit
--- by the people for the people (with a sufficient sense of capacity).
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)
Bring Back Jason Todd <bbjt@bbjt.com> wrote:
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support
new Usenet content.
"sorry to see them go", said no usenet admin.
"Effective February 15, 2024snip
Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file
sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam."
They are covering their incompetence!
There might be enough fragmentary archives around to form a "mostly
complete" set, but it'll take a lot of time and effort to unearth them
and coordinate their collation. For some reason I don't get the feeling
that Google will have much interest in releasing theirs.
I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
them to.
I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
did recently.
Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
the spam was no longer detected and prevented.
An Oops, followed by "let's see if anyone notices" and "oh ... they
noticed, shut it off" seems very likely.
Their excuse is completely bogus though,
On 12/14/23 19:33, The Doctor wrote:
They are covering their incompetence!
No, I've worked with them.
They aren't incompetent.
They are doing what they were told to do by management.
This is a business decision, not related to people's capability.
--
Grant. . . .
Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content >> from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data >> will still be supported as it is done today.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
The bad news is that this search engine "may" stop working soon.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.software.nntp>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
etc.
We got to provide solutions our ourselves. This is the USENET spirit
--- by the people for the people (with a sufficient sense of capacity).
Is it something we said?
*Please complain to Google about their spamming of Usenet*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/hO4JNke1bNc>
Lol!
On 12/14/23 16:27, Bring Back Jason Todd wrote:
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the least)
in order to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.
LOL
I'll believe it. I saw enough shit like that on the inside.
Like I have said elsewhere, the "Don't" fell over and all that remains
is "be Evil" of the Hollywood style sign.
My view from the inside has made me believe that Usenet support was in >bit-rot mode at Google years ago. Not even on life support.
--
Grant. . . .
On 12/14/23 19:31, The Doctor wrote:
This is what you get when you cannot control spamtrollers!
I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
them to.
I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in >preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
did recently.
Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement >wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
the spam was no longer detected and prevented.
An Oops, followed by "let's see if anyone notices" and "oh ... they
noticed, shut it off" seems very likely.
--
Grant. . . .
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)
Bring Back Jason Todd <bbjt@bbjt.com> wrote:
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support
new Usenet content.
[...]
"sorry to see them go", said no usenet admin.
Lol!
Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
The bad news is that this search engine "may" stop working soon.
Is it something we said?
We got to provide solutions our ourselves.
There is the narkive which, if it actually worked, would fit the bill.
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the least) in order
to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.
Anyway, the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?,
some?) newsgroups is the narkive - but it really sucks in my humble
opinion.
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com
I would like to ask others to check it out as I've never been
successful with it; but maybe it's just the privacy stuff I have on
my browsers?
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:00:23 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 14.12.2023 um 22:56:56 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
We got to provide solutions our ourselves.
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid
light?
If you want web interfaces go run a forum.
dnews has a web interface - I shut it down in the late 90's because
the more who found it abused it.
Am 14.12.2023 um 22:56:56 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
We got to provide solutions our ourselves.
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?
They are covering their incompetence!
Am 15.12.2023 um 21:54:27 Uhr schrieb noel:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:00:23 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 14.12.2023 um 22:56:56 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
We got to provide solutions our ourselves.
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?
If you want web interfaces go run a forum.
dnews has a web interface - I shut it down in the late 90's because the
more who found it abused it.
There is no need to have a posting opportunity there.
But those web interfaces make it possible to find content via regular
search engines.
Or do you know a Usenet search engine that can query NNTP servers?
Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> wrote
There might be enough fragmentary archives around to form a "mostly
complete" set, but it'll take a lot of time and effort to unearth them
and coordinate their collation. For some reason I don't get the feeling
that Google will have much interest in releasing theirs.
There is the narkive which, if it actually worked, would fit the bill.
a. It has to be web searchable w/o need for a newsreader or account
b. Results must be readable by your mother or grandmother using a browser
c. It has to result in a URI to the thread and to the article
The "only" one I know of (which sucks, by the way), is this one:
<https://news.software.nntp.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>
But, I repeat. It sucks. It's unreliable. Search doesn't work.
Last I had checked anyway...
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
just fine back in the say before search engines
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:04:28 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 15.12.2023 um 21:54:27 Uhr schrieb noel:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:00:23 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 14.12.2023 um 22:56:56 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
We got to provide solutions our ourselves.
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid
light?
If you want web interfaces go run a forum.
dnews has a web interface - I shut it down in the late 90's
because the more who found it abused it.
There is no need to have a posting opportunity there.
But those web interfaces make it possible to find content via
regular search engines.
Or do you know a Usenet search engine that can query NNTP servers?
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it
survived just fine back in the say before search engines
loads with updated threads, but trying to read messages results in
HTTP 505, meaning we have no idea what we're doing.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
They are covering their incompetence!
And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.
noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> writes:
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
just fine back in the say before search engines
That's an interesting point. It is perhaps a good idea not to display anything on the web precisely so that we do not attract people with an interest in seeing information displayed to a world such as the web.
For instance, if we display something on the web, the system might be
of interest to spammers.
Am 15.12.2023 um 10:40:48 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
loads with updated threads, but trying to read messages results in
HTTP 505, meaning we have no idea what we're doing.
Works for me: https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com/3iYQhKhL/effective-february-15-2024-google-groups-will-no-longer-support-new-usenet-content
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
They are covering their incompetence!
And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.
Greetings
Marc
Am 14.12.2023 um 18:55:14 Uhr schrieb Wally J:
Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
The bad news is that this search engine "may" stop working soon.
Didn't it stop working long time ago?
Is it something we said?
No, but Google doesn't care about what people say.
Be happy that they decided to keep the old content instead of
completely vanishing it and destroying millions of messages with
knowledge from the past.
Am 14.12.2023 um 23:19:59 Uhr schrieb Wally J:
There is the narkive which, if it actually worked, would fit the bill.
Although that doesn't include stuff from the 80s/90s.
Am 14.12.2023 um 22:56:56 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
We got to provide solutions our ourselves.
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?
If you want web interfaces go run a forum.
dnews has a web interface - I shut it down in the late 90's because the
more who found it abused it.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
They are covering their incompetence!
And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.
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
Am 15.12.2023 um 22:20:23 Uhr schrieb noel:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:04:28 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 15.12.2023 um 21:54:27 Uhr schrieb noel:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:00:23 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 14.12.2023 um 22:56:56 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
We got to provide solutions our ourselves.
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid
light?
If you want web interfaces go run a forum.
dnews has a web interface - I shut it down in the late 90's
because the more who found it abused it.
There is no need to have a posting opportunity there.
But those web interfaces make it possible to find content via
regular search engines.
Or do you know a Usenet search engine that can query NNTP servers?
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it
survived just fine back in the say before search engines
Because there is a need to find information that has been posted months
or years ago.
That means that a search engine needs to be able to index it.
I don't know any search engine that queries NNTP.
[...]
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
just fine back in the say before search engines
That's an interesting point. It is perhaps a good idea not to display >anything on the web precisely so that we do not attract people with an >interest in seeing information displayed to a world such as the web.
For instance, if we display something on the web, the system might be of >interest to spammers.
Maybe we should keep the USENET as hidden from the world as possible.
This closedness might actually work as an invitation. The value of the >USENET is the value of the people in it. If we only invite technical
people, for instance, the USENET becomes attractive to whose interested
in such properties.
In article <ulhhca$kud4$1@news1.tnib.de>,
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
They are covering their incompetence!
And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.
So shutting spammers down might not be a google priority.
Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:
noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> writes:
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
just fine back in the say before search engines
That's an interesting point. It is perhaps a good idea not to display
anything on the web precisely so that we do not attract people with an
interest in seeing information displayed to a world such as the web.
For instance, if we display something on the web, the system might be
of interest to spammers.
Usenet had spam before it had a web presence. Spam will appear anywhere
that has an audience and lacks sufficient controls to prevent it.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
They are covering their incompetence!
And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.
Greetings
Marc
I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away
from pursuing Usenet.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
On 12/15/23 10:02, The Doctor wrote:
In article <ulhhca$kud4$1@news1.tnib.de>,
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
They are covering their incompetence!
And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.
So shutting spammers down might not be a google priority.
Why would you think Google cares?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
Maybe we should keep the USENET as hidden from the world as possible.
Bring Back Jason Todd a tapoté le 14/12/2023 23:27:
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenetleast) in order
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the
to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.
What a pity!
It is not a good publicity for Google!
--
Stéphane
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:38:33 +0100, Marc Haber
<mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
They are covering their incompetence!
And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.
and yet the schizophrenic would believe that should make perfect sense; >google is a ghost ship that answers to no one, adrift for all eternity
In article <20231215.140949.4d2394c5@mixmin.net>, D <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:38:33 +0100, Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
They are covering their incompetence!And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.
and yet the schizophrenic would believe that should make perfect sense; >>google is a ghost ship that answers to no one, adrift for all eternity
And now floundering!
I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people
away from pursuing Usenet.
Eternal-September's registration page says otherwise.
Thus spake doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor)
Why would you think Google cares?Hence incompetence.
Google's Razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be
adequately explained by malice.
--
Пу́тін — хуйло́
http://www.eternal-september.org
In article <871qbnef3v.fsf@yaxenu.org>, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> writes:
[...]
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
just fine back in the say before search engines
That's an interesting point. It is perhaps a good idea not to display >>anything on the web precisely so that we do not attract people with an >>interest in seeing information displayed to a world such as the web.
For instance, if we display something on the web, the system might be of >>interest to spammers.
Maybe we should keep the USENET as hidden from the world as possible.
This closedness might actually work as an invitation. The value of the >>USENET is the value of the people in it. If we only invite technical >>people, for instance, the USENET becomes attractive to whose interested
in such properties.
What about non-tech hobbyists?
Why would you think Google cares?Hence incompetence.
On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:
And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.
I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away
from pursuing Usenet.
Thus spake doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor)
Why would you think Google cares?
Hence incompetence.
Google's Razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be
adequately explained by malice.
But
https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com/utLAtZzn/effective-february-15-2024-google-groups-will-no-longer-support-new-usenet-content#
does not. (The one you mentioned doesn't either.)
In article <ulh14h$1qodo$4@dont-email.me>,
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
Am 14.12.2023 um 23:19:59 Uhr schrieb Wally J:
There is the narkive which, if it actually worked, would fit the
bill.
Although that doesn't include stuff from the 80s/90s.
So can Google give the archive over?
Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as
it appears in your signature. It's OK in https though:
Marco Moock a écrit ceci :
Works for me.
It works if I ask my browser to favor the secure connection (https),
but in this case any http URL will result in an error message.
Works for me.
Marco Moock wrote:
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?
URL?
Marco Moock a écrit ceci :
It works if I ask my browser to favor the secure connection (https),
but in this case any http URL will result in an error message.
It works for me with http and https. I use Pale Moon.
The problem occurs in Vivaldi, and probably in other Chrome-based
browsers.
Ray Banana wrote:
Eternal-September's registration page says otherwise.
Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as it >appears in your signature. It's OK in https though:
<https://www.eternal-september.org>
It works if I ask my browser to favor the secure connection (https),
but in this case any http URL will result in an error message.
It works for me with http and https. I use Pale Moon.
So can Google give the archive over?
I don't think they will do that.
I also don't know if peers maybe can access it via NNTP to suck all
the articles.
What, by default, the browser refuses to load http? That's an
incredibly stupid client.
What, by default, the browser refuses to load http? That's an incredibly stupid client.
I don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not related to eternal-september.
It used to be assumed that unencrypted HTTP was the default and
encrypted HTTPS was the exception. We're now probably two thirds the
way along the migration to where encrypted HTTPS is assumed the
default and unencrypted HTTP is the exception.
Marco Moock wrote:
schrieb Wally J:
the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?,
some?) newsgroups is the narkive
Sadly, there is no list of all groups hosted there.
Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.
On 12/15/23 14:34, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
What, by default, the browser refuses to load http? That's an
incredibly stupid client.
No ... it's a byproduct of evolving security on the web for the last
10-15 years.
It used to be assumed that unencrypted HTTP was the default and
encrypted HTTPS was the exception. We're now probably two thirds the
way along the migration to where encrypted HTTPS is assumed the default
and unencrypted HTTP is the exception.
Some browsers have chosen to make it so that they won't try unencrypted
HTTP without explicitly telling it to like many browsers years ago
wouldn't try encrypted HTTPS without explicitly telling them to.
It's an ongoing change.
Hence incompetence.
schrieb Wally J:
the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?,
some?) newsgroups is the narkive
Sadly, there is no list of all groups hosted there.
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
just fine back in the say before search engines
The Doctor wrote:
Marco Moock wrote:
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?
URL?
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
Am 15.12.2023 um 17:47:10 Uhr schrieb DV:
Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as
it appears in your signature. It's OK in https though:
Works for me.
On 12/15/23 10:11, The Doctor wrote:
Hence incompetence.
Lack of caring and incompetence are two very different things.
--
Grant. . . .
Works for me after solving the captcha.
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
just fine back in the say before search engines
Usenet had spam before it had a web presence. Spam will appear anywhere
that has an audience and lacks sufficient controls to prevent it.
schrieb Andy Burns:
Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.
Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>
In summary, there's utility for a web searchable read-only archive
that goes back to the olden days (if possible) which requires only
a browser.
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?
URL?
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
Maybe we should keep the USENET as hidden from the world as possible.
No. That is antithetical to the intentions of Usenet.
Wally J wrote:
In summary, there's utility for a web searchable read-only archive
that goes back to the olden days (if possible) which requires only
a browser.
https://narkive.com/
Like Marco, I confirm that I can reach http://www.eternal-september.org/ which does not redirect to https://www.eternal-september.org/
Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.
Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>
I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.
Their excuse is completely bogus though,
No, it's not. It's not an excuse either. It's a reason. The reason
can be shortened to the last word.
They just fail to tell the whole truth -- that the vast majority of the
spam was originating from them -- and nothing but the truth -- the rest
of the fluff that they padded their statement with.
The fact that they are not discontinuing Google Groups supports that
people still use (news)groups to communicate. So any comment about
newer social media is a lie.
But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
"spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.
This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
times before.
Hey! I'm the guy behind Narkive.
I agree with OP, my service kinda sucks.
My only excuse is that I spent
most of 2022 rewriting the backend and was about a couple of months out
from releasing something completely new when I had to drop everything
to focus on a hardware startup (I tend to do this, but now my hands are
tied and I can't just go the other way around).
Not sure what I'm trying to achieve in sending this message, but I hope
this explain what the situation is with narkive.
On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
They are covering their incompetence!
And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being
the ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on
others while being on their own way out.
Greetings
Marc
I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people
away from pursuing Usenet.
Many here (e.g., Grant) know a lot more than I do I'll let them respond.
To me, the priority, as I see it, for the most good, is the search engine.
Marco Moock wrote:
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?URL?
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
We need to reach out to those legitimate users that are using Google
Groups and offer them alternative access.
In article <nnd$47644239$56aff236@ed594a78d9328f17>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Wally J wrote:
In summary, there's utility for a web searchable read-only archive
that goes back to the olden days (if possible) which requires only
a browser.
https://narkive.com/
Again, it doesn't go back very far, that's the problem. This is great
for the future, but large chunks of the past have been lost for a while
due to google groups search brokenness, and they are going to be lost
even more completely.
--scott
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:
And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.
I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away >>from pursuing Usenet.
Somehow Usenet will survive without the people who refuse to try Usenet
due to believing Google's lies.
For me www.eternal-september.org resolves to
135.181.20.170 and 2a01:4f9:4b:44c2::2 .For the former wget says
"failed: Connection refused" .I can't connect to the latter either but I don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
related to eternal-september .So possibly the reason that some people
can connect and some cannot is that the people who cannot have problems handling IPv6 addresses in general.
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote
But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
"spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.
Heh heh heh... yeah. The spam was originating from Google after all. :)
What still tells me there's more to the story than we know is that it's trivial (IMHO) for Google to filter out the spam originating from their servers.
Even I could do that. And I don't know a damn thing about Google's servers. What's so hard about filtering their own users' Google-Groups-Usenet posts when they do effective filtering with their email servers already?
Something very critical is missing from the information we're faced with.
This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
times before.
I worked for a decade alongside two of the smartest people in the world who ended up working for Google on their search engine team, where even They
were impressed with how sophisticated the "normal" Google search was.
If you know them, I'll say their initials, where both worked in the Silicon Valley with me, one of whom is D.G. and the other B.A. if you know them.
Also W.T. worked at Google who has argued with me many times that they're
not stupid (just like you argue here) but that they're told what to code.
My guess is either they were looking for an excuse to shut down the
service (maybe to save server space?),
throwing a bone to get us to stop complaining,
or they legitimately forgot about the gateway.
Thank you for a meaningful and helpful error report. Fixed.
schrieb Andy Burns:
Marco Moock wrote:
Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>
I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.
It worked some weeks ago.
Marco Moock wrote:
schrieb Andy Burns:
Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer
groups.
Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>
I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.
On 12/15/23 16:34, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article <nnd$47644239$56aff236@ed594a78d9328f17>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Wally J wrote:
In summary, there's utility for a web searchable read-only archive
that goes back to the olden days (if possible) which requires only
a browser.
https://narkive.com/
Again, it doesn't go back very far, that's the problem. This is great
for the future, but large chunks of the past have been lost for a while
due to google groups search brokenness, and they are going to be lost
even more completely.
At the very least, a couple newsgroups (like rec.arts.comics.creative)
have their own archives that go back pretty far: >https://lists.eyrie.org/pipermail/racc/
On 12/15/23 21:39, candycanearter07 wrote:
My guess is either they were looking for an excuse to shut down the
service (maybe to save server space?),
Maybe.
Though Google has not needed an excuse to do things in the past. Quite
the contrary, they do things that have upset people to the point of an >anti-excuse / reason to keep things.
throwing a bone to get us to stop complaining,
I doubt that.
or they legitimately forgot about the gateway.
I highly doubt it.
I saw hints of them pondering shutting down the Google Groups Usenet
gateway around when the new Mozilla Firefox / Thunderbird and Windows 11 >newsgroups became a thing.
The shutdown has been coming.
The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.
--
Grant. . . .
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear.
Viewing and searching of historical data
will still be supported as it is done today.
Hi all,
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content
from Usenet peers will not appear.
One could create gatewayed genuine Google groups (using dashes instead
of dots in the name of the group), and the show would go on, but I doubt
it would really be good for Usenet.
Let's encourage people to use better news clients and news servers :)
Viewing and searching of historical data
will still be supported as it is done today.
... until Google announces they discontinue this service (and justifies
it in a few years because of broken searches and the fact that the
archives are not complete as they have stopped in 2024).
We should then ensure to keep several copies of historical data, as some people here have already begun to do.
FWIW, https://olduse.net/ also has interesting historical data.
In article <uljdsc$7en$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
The shutdown has been coming.
The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.
After a year's worth of complaints ...
Hi all,
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content >> from Usenet peers will not appear.
One could create gatewayed genuine Google groups (using dashes instead
of dots in the name of the group), and the show would go on, but I doubt
it would really be good for Usenet.
Let's encourage people to use better news clients and news servers :)
Viewing and searching of historical data
will still be supported as it is done today.
... until Google announces they discontinue this service (and justifies
it in a few years because of broken searches and the fact that the
archives are not complete as they have stopped in 2024).
We should then ensure to keep several copies of historical data, as some >people here have already begun to do.
FWIW, https://olduse.net/ also has interesting historical data.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Affirmanti incumbit probatio. »
Julien LIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
Hi all,new content
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and
from Usenet peers will not appear.
One could create gatewayed genuine Google groups (using dashes instead
of dots in the name of the group), and the show would go on, but I doubt
it would really be good for Usenet.
Let's encourage people to use better news clients and news servers :)
Viewing and searching of historical data
will still be supported as it is done today.
... until Google announces they discontinue this service (and justifies
it in a few years because of broken searches and the fact that the
archives are not complete as they have stopped in 2024).
We should then ensure to keep several copies of historical data, as some
people here have already begun to do.
FWIW, https://olduse.net/ also has interesting historical data.
Thanks for that! I've seen references to olduse.net before, but never
had a reason to look at it. Google's stunt of course changed that.
The <https://olduse.net/> page points to <https://article.olduse.net/>
which offers to "Look up old usenet articles by Message-ID".
And lo and behold I can lookup my February 24, 1989 article which I've
used as and example in these recent threads (No, to preserve my privacy
and those of others, I still won't give the URL.)
I like the CRT terminal like, low resolution, shades of yellow,
display in 'source' format! :-) Well done!
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
On 12/15/23 16:34, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article <nnd$47644239$56aff236@ed594a78d9328f17>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Wally J wrote:
In summary, there's utility for a web searchable read-only archive
that goes back to the olden days (if possible) which requires only
a browser.
https://narkive.com/
Again, it doesn't go back very far, that's the problem. This is great
for the future, but large chunks of the past have been lost for a while
due to google groups search brokenness, and they are going to be lost
even more completely.
At the very least, a couple newsgroups (like rec.arts.comics.creative)
have their own archives that go back pretty far:
https://lists.eyrie.org/pipermail/racc/
Yes. talk.bizarre used to have one of those, but we packed the hard drive
up and shipped it to Dejanews. It was 1G of material so I am not sure
anyone was ever able to keep a backup of it.
--scott
On 12/16/23 06:16, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Yes. talk.bizarre used to have one of those, but we packed the hardShipped it? Like, the entire HDD?
drive up and shipped it to Dejanews. It was 1G of material so I am
not sure anyone was ever able to keep a backup of it.
Hi all,
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support newOne could create gatewayed genuine Google groups (using dashes instead
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content
from Usenet peers will not appear.
of dots in the name of the group), and the show would go on, but I doubt
it would really be good for Usenet.
Let's encourage people to use better news clients and news servers :)
Viewing and searching of historical data... until Google announces they discontinue this service (and justifies
will still be supported as it is done today.
it in a few years because of broken searches and the fact that the
archives are not complete as they have stopped in 2024).
We should then ensure to keep several copies of historical data, as some
people here have already begun to do.
FWIW, https://olduse.net/ also has interesting historical data.
Thanks for that! I've seen references to olduse.net before, but never
had a reason to look at it. Google's stunt of course changed that.
The <https://olduse.net/> page points to <https://article.olduse.net/>
which offers to "Look up old usenet articles by Message-ID".
And lo and behold I can lookup my February 24, 1989 article which I've
used as and example in these recent threads (No, to preserve my privacy
and those of others, I still won't give the URL.)
I like the CRT terminal like, low resolution, shades of yellow,
display in 'source' format! :-) Well done!
olduse.net[end quote]
Extended replay
olduse.net was mentioned in a thread on the fediverse recently. I couldn't >help but reply with information about the current status. To my surprise >restarting the replay was mentioned.
I hadn't thought about that. But why not? I have all the articles in a >database, I could extract the Date: into a column, index it, and do some
SQL to find every article more than 40 years old. From there the road isn't >long to implementing a custom nntp daemon to serve it.
During the implementation I realized that I could easily expose a 40 year >delayed archive on one port, a 41 year delayed archive on another port, and >so on, until the start of the archive (currently 42 years delayed).
So here we are:
Delay (years) Connect to (port) #groups #articles
40 olduse.net 11940 265 28640
41 olduse.net 11941 91 3933
42 olduse.net 11942 3 15
Point your Gnus, slrn, tin, Pan, Thunderbird, or even Lynx or ELinks at any >of those ports and enjoy another round of olduse.net!
Adam Sjogren
2022-12-09
Keeping olduse.net around
olduse.net was an interactive art installation conceived and implemented by >Joey Hess that ran from 2011 to 2021.
olduse.net was posting the first 10 years of archived usenet articles to a >news server, replaying usenet as it happened 30 years earlier. It also had
a web interface with an interactive news reader, allowing you to access the >news server via the web instead of using nntp.
When the project was announced I wanted a way to link to those old articles >on the web, so I borrowed some of Joey Hess' code and implemented >article.olduse.net, by shoveling the archive into a database.
My service hasn't seen that much use, but it did get its own version of >"FSF-dotting", when the 30th anniversary of the GNU project announcement
was celebrated, and many sites linked to the original article on >article.olduse.net.
When the art project was over I still wanted article.olduse.net to continue >working, and Joey Hess was nice enough to transfer the domain to me.
So here we are. Enjoy.
Adam Sjogren
2022-07-22
On 12/16/23 06:16, Scott Dorsey wrote:
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
On 12/15/23 16:34, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article <nnd$47644239$56aff236@ed594a78d9328f17>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Wally J wrote:
In summary, there's utility for a web searchable read-only archive >>>>>> that goes back to the olden days (if possible) which requires only >>>>>> a browser.
https://narkive.com/
Again, it doesn't go back very far, that's the problem. This is great >>>> for the future, but large chunks of the past have been lost for a while >>>> due to google groups search brokenness, and they are going to be lost
even more completely.
At the very least, a couple newsgroups (like rec.arts.comics.creative)
have their own archives that go back pretty far:
https://lists.eyrie.org/pipermail/racc/
Yes. talk.bizarre used to have one of those, but we packed the hard drive >> up and shipped it to Dejanews. It was 1G of material so I am not sure
anyone was ever able to keep a backup of it.
Shipped it? Like, the entire HDD?
My server's private (for the time being). Article's aren't expired,
(except for ephemeral admin information). So my spool goes back
decades. And it turns out something along the lines of:
schrieb noel:
Marco Moock wrote:
schrieb noel:
Marco Moock wrote:
schrieb Julieta Shem:
We got to provide solutions our ourselves.
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid
light?
If you want web interfaces go run a forum.
dnews has a web interface - I shut it down in the late 90's
because the more who found it abused it.
There is no need to have a posting opportunity there.
But those web interfaces make it possible to find content via
regular search engines.
Or do you know a Usenet search engine that can query NNTP servers?
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it
survived just fine back in the say before search engines
Because there is a need to find information that has been posted months
or years ago.
That means that a search engine needs to be able to index it.
I don't know any search engine that queries NNTP.
My server's private (for the time being). Article's aren't expired,
(except for ephemeral admin information). So my spool goes back
decades. And it turns out something along the lines of:
find . | xargs grep -l '@crcomp.net' | xargs grep 'braid'
reliably returns articles apparently lost by google along the way.
Would you like to make that archive public?
schrieb Don:
My server's private (for the time being). Article's aren't expired,
(except for ephemeral admin information). So my spool goes back
decades. And it turns out something along the lines of:
Would you like to make that archive public?
Don wrote:
My server's private (for the time being). Article's aren't expired,
(except for ephemeral admin information). So my spool goes back
decades. And it turns out something along the lines of:
find . | xargs grep -l '@crcomp.net' | xargs grep 'braid'
I occasionally do similar with my private news server.
Though, on spinning rust, it takes quite a while to walk the 20 or so
million articles that my server has.
My server's private (for the time being). Article's aren't expired,
(except for ephemeral admin information). So my spool goes back
decades. And it turns out something along the lines of:
Don wrote:
My server's private (for the time being). Article's aren't expired,
(except for ephemeral admin information). So my spool goes back
decades. And it turns out something along the lines of:
How many decades? Does it predate the Renaming? If it goes back before 1990, would it be possible for me to get access to parts of it?
In article <20231216b@crcomp.net>, Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
My server's private (for the time being). Article's aren't expired,
(except for ephemeral admin information). So my spool goes back
decades. And it turns out something along the lines of:
How many decades? Does it predate the Renaming? If it goes back before 1990, would it be possible for me to get access to parts of it?
--scott
Marco Moock wrote:
schrieb Don:
My server's private (for the time being). Article's aren't expired,
(except for ephemeral admin information). So my spool goes back
decades. And it turns out something along the lines of:
Would you like to make that archive public?
It's tempting. Although it's probably not doable - given google's
failure, despite the enormous resources available at its disposal.
Nonetheless, there's a silver lining. archive hosts a ton of
articles available to the public:
https://archive.org/details/usenet
Danke,
--
Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light; >She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> writes:
On 12/16/23 06:16, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Yes. talk.bizarre used to have one of those, but we packed the hardShipped it? Like, the entire HDD?
drive up and shipped it to Dejanews. It was 1G of material so I am
not sure anyone was ever able to keep a backup of it.
Back then, a gig was a *lot* to transfer over the wire - especially to a remote site. Sending the physical drive was probably quicker, cheaper,
and more efficient.
noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> writes:
[...]
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
just fine back in the say before search engines
That's an interesting point. It is perhaps a good idea not to display anything on the web precisely so that we do not attract people with an interest in seeing information displayed to a world such as the web. For instance, if we display something on the web, the system might be of
interest to spammers.
Maybe we should keep the USENET as hidden from the world as possible.
This closedness might actually work as an invitation. The value of the USENET is the value of the people in it. If we only invite technical
people, for instance, the USENET becomes attractive to whose interested
in such properties.
In article <657c3e73$1@news.ausics.net>, noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:00:23 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 14.12.2023 um 22:56:56 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
We got to provide solutions our ourselves.
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?
If you want web interfaces go run a forum.
dnews has a web interface - I shut it down in the late 90's because the >>more who found it abused it.
Now username/password protection?
Usenet had spam before it had a web presence. Spam will appear anywhere
that has an audience and lacks sufficient controls to prevent it.
Ohhh and for Marco, if your next excuse is short retention, then find
a better server ;)
No, my next excuse is that my newsreader only supports downloading
10000 articles from the server. It doesn't download more and so I can't
find older stuff even when available there.
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:
No, my next excuse is that my newsreader only supports downloading
10000 articles from the server. It doesn't download more and so I can't
find older stuff even when available there.
Then it is a toy. Get a tool instead.
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:
No, my next excuse is that my newsreader only supports downloading
10000 articles from the server. It doesn't download more and so I
can't find older stuff even when available there.
Then it is a toy. Get a tool instead.
Do you know one?
I tried suck, but that is intended to speak to a local news server or
at least its spool.
I tried suck, but that is intended to speak to a local news server or
at least its spool.
Am 17.12.2023 um 18:12:33 Uhr schrieb yeti:
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:
No, my next excuse is that my newsreader only supports downloading
10000 articles from the server. It doesn't download more and so I
can't find older stuff even when available there.
Then it is a toy. Get a tool instead.
Do you know one?
I tried suck, but that is intended to speak to a local news server or
at least its spool.
Am 17.12.2023 um 18:12:33 Uhr schrieb yeti:
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:
No, my next excuse is that my newsreader only supports downloading
10000 articles from the server. It doesn't download more and so I
can't find older stuff even when available there.
Then it is a toy. Get a tool instead.
Do you know one?
I tried suck, but that is intended to speak to a local news server or
at least its spool.
In article <657c3e73$1@news.ausics.net>, noel <deletethis@invalid.lan>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:00:23 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 14.12.2023 um 22:56:56 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
We got to provide solutions our ourselves.
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?
If you want web interfaces go run a forum.
dnews has a web interface - I shut it down in the late 90's because the >>>more who found it abused it.
Now username/password protection?
yes it had that, but the spam bots kept trying to get in at a monumental >rate, captchas didnt exist back then, or not sane ones that someone as
blind as Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder could even pass :)
The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:
No, my next excuse is that my newsreader only supports downloading
10000 articles from the server. It doesn't download more and so I can't
find older stuff even when available there.
Then it is a toy. Get a tool instead.
--
I do not bite, I just want to play.
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote
The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.
I have no evidence of this circumstantial claim based on timing alone, but
I suspect maybe Google killed 'something' in preparation for this shutdown, >which is what allowed all the google-based spam to suddenly flood the ngs.
What that 'something' might have possibly been, I cannot hope to say -
other than it may have been what opened the previously-closed floodgates.
As such, it may have been the prelude that we saw in the past few weeks...
Am 15.12.2023 um 20:45:06 Uhr schrieb Spiros Bousbouras:
I don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
related to eternal-september.
Then check if your system has an IPv6 address (not fe80 or fd00, those
can't be used for internet communication).
In article <657c4487$1@news.ausics.net>, noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
just fine back in the say before search engines
But it did not. Most of the early Usenet archives that were turned over
to dejanews were a combination of files people had personally saved and fragments of Henry Spencer's backup tapes from utzoo. A lot of it was
lost meaning that although there are many postings from before dejanews
was created, the selection is not random and they cannot be used for any statistical analysis.
--scott
This is where the vagaries and technicalities of NNTP vs NNRP come into
play.
NNTP is server to server feeding articles.
NNRP is client to server fetching and posting articles.
Often the protocols are mutually exclusive, partially out of security (clients can't feed) and partially out of daemon simplicity (why have
NNRP stack in a pure NNTP server).
What's more is that in my experience, the ability to be a peer and use
NNTP to feed articles is often controlled by IP. As such, any
connections from said IP is automatically doesn't have access to NNRP,
and vice versa.
noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote
Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
just fine back in the say before search engines
Aurgh.
:)
Hi Noel,
You have to think differently. Big picture. Think of others. Not
yourself.
Think of those others not being technical. They don't know what you
know.
I can sense that you're likely a good person
The futility of Usenet is it requires an account.
The futility of Usenet is it requires a newsreader of some type.
The futility of Usenet is it is (almost) never archived for long.
The futility of Usenet is that it requires knowledge to read for free.
The futility of Usenet is the search is only as good as your newsreader.
The futility of Usenet is you can't easily reference an article by URL.
(Sure, you can reference a message-id but you have to find it first)
Anyway, it's pretty irksome people don't get it that it's nice to be
able to search before posting and it's even nicer to be able to
reference a thread or article for a mother who doesn't even know how to
spell Usenet.
Server Details, even in, ohh what was that windowsy thing... Trumpet or Trombone... to todays clients, because of its popularity waining in
Server Details, even in, ohh what was that windowsy thing... Trumpet or Trombone...
IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
routes magically start working when you get your users to disable
IPv6.
Also I've found users own over-reaching firewall rules can interfere
with it.
noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> writes:
Server Details, even in, ohh what was that windowsy thing... Trumpet or
Trombone...
Well, you need *something* to push air down the windsock...
Am 18.12.2023 um 12:19:45 Uhr schrieb noel:
IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
routes magically start working when you get your users to disable
IPv6.
The something in the network is broken.
Some small amount of network operators are also too stupid to
understand IPv6 und for example place mapped IPv4 addresses in the AAAA.
Even if people tell them, they are too stupid to fix their fault.
Also I've found users own over-reaching firewall rules can interfere
with it.
Firewall admins must understand IPv6.
I run IPv6 for more than 3 years and it works.
The something in the network is broken.
Some small amount of network operators are also too stupid to
understand IPv6 und for example place mapped IPv4 addresses in the AAAA.
Even if people tell them, they are too stupid to fix their fault.
Firewall admins must understand IPv6.
I run IPv6 for more than 3 years and it works.
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
Am 18.12.2023 um 13:06:43 Uhr schrieb The Doctor:
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
You can get that from your local RIR, but you also need an ISP that is >willing to route that to your home.
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
Puttying a raw dotted quad IPv4 address in an AAAA record is bad.
Putting an encoded IPv4 address in an AAAA is perfectly fine. There
are two or three common ways to do this.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I'm cutting the crosspost.
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote
The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.
I have no evidence of this circumstantial claim based on timing alone, but >>>I suspect maybe Google killed 'something' in preparation for this shutdown, >>>which is what allowed all the google-based spam to suddenly flood the ngs.
Why would you believe that?
What that 'something' might have possibly been, I cannot hope to say - >>>other than it may have been what opened the previously-closed floodgates.
As such, it may have been the prelude that we saw in the past few weeks...
Google has never counteracted spam.
IMHO, Wally's off his trolley; either that or just plain trolling.
As long as that address directs to a NAT64 gateway that is reachable
from the internet, that is fine. But some clueless people use
IPv4-mapped addresses in AAAA records and those are not routed, so you
get back an ICMP no route to dst.
See here for that support ticket: https://forum.newrelic.com/s/hubtopic/aAX8W0000015BUvWAM/bamnrdatanet-resolves-with-wrong-aaaarecords
Am 18.12.2023 um 12:19:45 Uhr schrieb noel:
IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
routes magically start working when you get your users to disable IPv6.
The something in the network is broken.
Some small amount of network operators are also too stupid to understand
IPv6 und for example place mapped IPv4 addresses in the AAAA.
Even if people tell them, they are too stupid to fix their fault.
Also I've found users own over-reaching firewall rules can interfere
with it.
Firewall admins must understand IPv6.
I run IPv6 for more than 3 years and it works.
noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> wrote:
[...]
the controller had a catostrophic failure roytally roting teh raid[...]
disks too, and all was lost, so had to start again
That's lyrical, that is.
You could write an epic saga around those words.
On 12/18/23 07:06, The Doctor wrote:
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years >before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.
Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
provider and as such block access from them.
There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6 >network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address".
I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers. But mostly with
what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.
On 12/18/23 07:06, The Doctor wrote:
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.
Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
provider and as such block access from them.
There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6 network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address".
I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers. But mostly with
what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.
Grant. . . .
On 12/18/23 15:07, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 12/18/23 07:06, The Doctor wrote:
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years
before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.
Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
provider and as such block access from them.
There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6
network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address". >> I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers. But mostly with
what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.
Grant. . . .
IPv4 has the same problem. This is nothing to do with IPv6, and
everything to do with capitalism being shit.
As Marc said, they whitelist certain networks as "eyeball networks". If
your IP doesn't happen to belong to such a network, too bad - you're >obviously a scraper, so the site says, fuck off! It's as bad as email
spam filtering.
*Actual* scrapers, of course, can rent SOCKS proxies located on eyeball >networks, in bulk quantities, from a business whose entire business
model is to sell SOCKS proxies on eyeball networks, for about $0.50 a
month per proxy (cheaper in bulk). This is even better access to eyeball >networks than eyeballs like yours or mine have. So you have two
businesses fighting each other, achieving nothing in reality, but
wasting money, and everybody loses. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
This is nothing to do with IPv6,
Yes, people think that IPv6 is unimportant so they tune their filters
in much more obnoxious ways than they would dare doing with the
protocol that everybody uses.
On 12/19/23 04:25, immibis wrote:
This is nothing to do with IPv6,
I find the problem to be multiple orders of magnitude worse on IPv6 than
I do on IPv4.
So I think that it has at least something to do with IPv6 vs IPv4. ;-)
Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that they
have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of "stealth", it
would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and still have an operational network.
Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that
they have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of
"stealth", it would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and
still have an operational network.
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:
Yes, people think that IPv6 is unimportant so they tune their filters
in much more obnoxious ways than they would dare doing with the
protocol that everybody uses.
Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that they
have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of "stealth", it
would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and still have an >operational network.
I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
them to.
I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
did recently.
Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
the spam was no longer detected and prevented.
On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
them to.
I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
longer offered.
["service" referring to googlegroups]
Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
but derive any income whatsoever.
I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a short time.
On 12/23/23 19:07, Timo wrote:
I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a
short time.
I agree.
However that is predicated by management allowing the programmers to do so.
I believe this was more deliberate and business level than it was
anything else.
--
Grant. . . .
On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
them to.
I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
longer offered.
["service" referring to googlegroups]
Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
but derive any income whatsoever.
On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
them to.
I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
longer offered.
["service" referring to googlegroups]
Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
but derive any income whatsoever.
To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
In article <uma9j9$2nk73$5@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted >>>>> them to.
I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
longer offered.
["service" referring to googlegroups]
Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that >>> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit >>> but derive any income whatsoever.
To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
They needed to maintain good administration!!
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
They needed to maintain good administration!!
How much it would it have cost Google to have detailed one programmer to >handle this stuff? Google Groups is revenue-negative on its own, but >searching is Google's original core business and continuing to carry
access to Usenet - without reams of Thai-language spam - should have
made perfect sense to them.
I'm wondering if that "Usenet is dead" message eminating from PC-rag was
not supplied to the friendly (to Google) journalist by Google as a PR
piece to justify their decision. Google is poorer for having cut
themselves off from that source, but you can't rely on a herd of MBAs to
take a long-term view.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <uma9j9$2nk73$5@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted >>>>>> them to.
I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no >>>>> longer offered.
["service" referring to googlegroups]
Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that >>>> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit >>>> but derive any income whatsoever.
To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
They needed to maintain good administration!!
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
How much it would it have cost Google to have detailed one programmer to >handle this stuff? Google Groups is revenue-negative on its own, but >searching is Google's original core business and continuing to carry
access to Usenet - without reams of Thai-language spam - should have
made perfect sense to them.
I'm wondering if that "Usenet is dead" message eminating from PC-rag was
not supplied to the friendly (to Google) journalist by Google as a PR
piece to justify their decision. Google is poorer for having cut
themselves off from that source, but you can't rely on a herd of MBAs to
take a long-term view.
On Mon, 25 Dec 2023 12:05:46 +0100, Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote: >>The Doctor wrote:
snip
They needed to maintain good administration!!
How much it would it have cost Google to have detailed one programmer to >>handle this stuff? Google Groups is revenue-negative on its own, but >>searching is Google's original core business and continuing to carry
access to Usenet - without reams of Thai-language spam - should have
made perfect sense to them.
I'm wondering if that "Usenet is dead" message eminating from PC-rag was >>not supplied to the friendly (to Google) journalist by Google as a PR
piece to justify their decision. Google is poorer for having cut >>themselves off from that source, but you can't rely on a herd of MBAs to >>take a long-term view.
their "usenet is dead" narrative started before the turn of the century,
yet usenet is still dead decades later and its popularity is increasing; >perhaps their definition of dead simply means alien, outside looking in
I would crosspost to groups
~57 days left until google finally cuts the chord
D wrote:
~57 days left until google finally cuts the chord
I'll be the one to say it ... "cord" not "chord" :-)
D wrote:
~57 days left until google finally cuts the chord
I'll be the one to say it ... "cord" not "chord" :-)
D <J@M> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 01:36:28 -0000 (UTC),
vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
I would crosspost to groups
not exceeding "xpost %>3" seems to be the usual limit, but posting
on-topic to only one newsgroup at a time is the best usenetiquette;
at this writing, ~57 days left until google finally cuts the chord
Back in the day it was thought that crossposts, where essential, should
have followups set to the one most relevant group selected from those >crossposted groups. Both crossposting and followups being set should
be announced in the crossposted article. Failure to set a single group >followup risks fragmenting the discussion.
Generally speaking, crossposting was somewhat frowned upon;
multi-posting even more so.
--
^^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator
My pet rock Gordon just is.
D wrote:
~57 days left until google finally cuts the chord
I'll be the one to say it ... "cord" not "chord" :-)
In article <1qmedr9.1t8ucsa1v571roN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>,
Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
Back in the day it was thought that crossposts, where essential,
should have followups set to the one most relevant group selected
from those crossposted groups. Both crossposting and followups
being set should be announced in the crossposted article.
Failure to set a single group followup risks fragmenting the
discussion.
Due to stupid abusers!
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
D wrote:
~57 days left until google finally cuts the chord
I'll be the one to say it ... "cord" not "chord" :-)
Sing it! In harmony!
The Doctor wrote:
In article <1qmedr9.1t8ucsa1v571roN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>,
Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
Back in the day it was thought that crossposts, where essential,
should have followups set to the one most relevant group selected
from those crossposted groups. Both crossposting and followups
being set should be announced in the crossposted article.
Failure to set a single group followup risks fragmenting the
discussion.
Due to stupid abusers!
Our thoughts exactly! So when are you going to stop doing it?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 18:54:48 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,958 |
