group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
as is comp.lang.cobol, 36 so far today.
group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 14:07:09 +0100, Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote: >>Spam Report wrote:
group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
as is comp.lang.cobol, 36 so far today.
there's no going back . . . once google falls off the usenet radar, other >notoriously-spammy servers will stick out like a sore thumb, particularly >those that appear to function as troll farm storefronts . . . if almighty >google is saving face, those less invincible may not afford such luxuries
On 07/02/2024 14:03, Spam Report wrote:
group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
My server it's not the source of this spam, and I can't be able to monitor all group's. But we can ask one of the NoCem bot's owner Ray or Retro Guy to do a mass-nocem notice to delete them (or with cancels).
group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
In article <upvuu6$2d04t$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
I don't know what paganini is,
but comp.terminals is one of the more
heavily-hit recipients of the current google spamflood. If your admin
is not filtering these out, you won't have long to wait. 19 days left.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
In article <upvuu6$2d04t$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
I don't know what paganini is,
The News server paganini.bofh.team that the O.P. is a user on.
On 07/02/2024 14:03, Spam Report wrote:
group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
My server it's not the source of this spam, and I can't be able to
monitor all group's. But we can ask one of the NoCem bot's owner Ray or
Retro Guy to do a mass-nocem notice to delete them (or with cancels).
I checked the Message-IDs of several spam on your server (paganini) and
they are already listed in NoCeM messages.
Is there maybe an issue applying the NoCeMs recently?
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
I don't know what paganini is,
The News server paganini.bofh.team that the O.P. is a user on.
Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?
I can certainly state that nocems are very effective at dealing with this >spam, and if their admins are not acceping them, they probably should be.
On the other hand, with only 19 days left, maybe they don't think it is
worth making any configuration changes at this point.
Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here? >> I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here? >> I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
In article <uq1v59$2kg5u$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here? >>> I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
These servers are run by Google. They are being shut off in 18 days.
We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
Because, after many years of crap from Google, a fix is in place. But
it will take time, and for another 18 days we are all going to have to
rely on filtering to keep Usenet readable.
--scott
On 8 Feb 2024 14:00:14 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article <uq1v59$2kg5u$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
These servers are run by Google. They are being shut off in 18 days.
We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
Because, after many years of crap from Google, a fix is in place. But
it will take time, and for another 18 days we are all going to have to
rely on filtering to keep Usenet readable.
--scott
maybe a moot point but george washington's 292nd birthday is 22 february
D <J@M> writes:
On 8 Feb 2024 14:00:14 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article <uq1v59$2kg5u$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
These servers are run by Google. They are being shut off in 18 days.
We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
Because, after many years of crap from Google, a fix is in place. But
it will take time, and for another 18 days we are all going to have to >>>rely on filtering to keep Usenet readable.
--scott
maybe a moot point but george washington's 292nd birthday is 22 february
It's not a "moot point", you illiterate, it's a non sequitur.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 01:19:49 -0600, Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here? >>> I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
as a layman this looks similar to how the massive amounts of spam that originated from google groups appeared to be supported by servers that
were peering with google "peering!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!"
why do servers unfriendly to spammers peer with spam-friendly servers?
In article <aaa0cc6b4cd248a5e6e208902d2d874d@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 14:07:09 +0100, Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote: >>> Spam Report wrote:
group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
as is comp.lang.cobol, 36 so far today.
there's no going back . . . once google falls off the usenet radar, other
notoriously-spammy servers will stick out like a sore thumb, particularly
those that appear to function as troll farm storefronts . . . if almighty
google is saving face, those less invincible may not afford such luxuries
Yes, but dumping traffic from them will be much less problematic than a
UDP on google.
--scott
On 8/02/24 14:22, D wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 01:19:49 -0600, Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote: >>> On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
as a layman this looks similar to how the massive amounts of spam that
originated from google groups appeared to be supported by servers that
were peering with google "peering!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!"
why do servers unfriendly to spammers peer with spam-friendly servers?
Surely you must realize the server you are currently using is one of the
more spam-friendly ones, and asking this question is not in your best >interest.
In article <aaa0cc6b4cd248a5e6e208902d2d874d@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 14:07:09 +0100, Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:Yes, but dumping traffic from them will be much less problematic than a
Spam Report wrote:
group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
as is comp.lang.cobol, 36 so far today.
there's no going back . . . once google falls off the usenet radar, other >>> notoriously-spammy servers will stick out like a sore thumb, particularly >>> those that appear to function as troll farm storefronts . . . if almighty >>> google is saving face, those less invincible may not afford such luxuries >>
UDP on google.
If, as is often cited, approximately 0 useful traffic comes from Google,
then what is problematic about a UDP on it?
My server it's not the source of this spam, and I can't be able to
monitor all group's. But we can ask one of the NoCem bot's owner Ray or
Retro Guy to do a mass-nocem notice to delete them (or with cancels).
On 07/02/2024 23:16, Retro Guy wrote:
I checked the Message-IDs of several spam on your server (paganini) and
they are already listed in NoCeM messages.
Is there maybe an issue applying the NoCeMs recently?
Seem's strange, I have added all bot's on my nocem rig. Tomorrow I will
check the log's.
Sincerely
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:01:28 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,060 |
| Messages: | 6,416,692 |