I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
After: https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer -supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains
You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
After: https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains
You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
On 2024-02-25, david <this@is.invalid> wrote:
I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
After:
https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longe
r-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remain
s
You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
Well, GG was also dead to them so.
On 25 Feb 2024, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> posted some news:urg2nh$20q0u$1@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-25, david <this@is.invalid> wrote:
I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
After:
https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longe
r-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remain
s
You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
Well, GG was also dead to them so.
Trump should be announcing that Truth Social and Elon Musk have bought
Usenet from google any day now.
Trump should be announcing that Truth Social and Elon Musk have bought
Usenet from google any day now.
It would be hard for Google to sell Usenet since they've never owned it.
Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:
Trump should be announcing that Truth Social and Elon Musk have bought
Usenet from google any day now.
It would be hard for Google to sell Usenet since they've never owned it.
That never stopped any of those folks. Or the people who have repeatedly sold the Brooklyn Bridge. There's lots of money in the business of selling stuff you don't own.
--scott
On 25/02/24 23:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:
Trump should be announcing that Truth Social and Elon Musk have bought >>>> Usenet from google any day now.
It would be hard for Google to sell Usenet since they've never owned it.
That never stopped any of those folks. Or the people who have repeatedly
sold the Brooklyn Bridge. There's lots of money in the business of selling >> stuff you don't own.
--scott
Some might even say it's the only way to get rich.
david wrote:
I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
After:
https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains
You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
Your premise is flawed, they used multiple accounts. The spammed
newsgroup I monitor had them changing accounts every three or four
messages (that's an approximation).
I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
After: https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains
You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
david wrote:
I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
After:
https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains
You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
Your premise is flawed, they used multiple accounts. The spammed
newsgroup I monitor had them changing accounts every three or four
messages (that's an approximation).
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:23:03 +0100, R Daneel Olivaw wrote:
david wrote:
I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
After:
https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains
You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
Your premise is flawed, they used multiple accounts. The spammed
newsgroup I monitor had them changing accounts every three or four
messages (that's an approximation).
One thing I did while generating nocems was add accounts (from Injection-Info) to a spam rule if they exceeded trigger spam score by
(score X 3.5). So not all the spam, just the ones with a quite high spam score value.
This ended up with 12,133 google-groups accounts in that rule over time.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 49:56:22 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,314 |
| Posted today: | 1 |