"Charlie Self" wrote:
> At one point, my memory tells me there was some little program
that would provide a method of blanking out the offending dipshits,
but that went away with all the other things on my HD, and Foxmire
seems incapable of saving much of what I thought it would save, so...
Do you have a problem with Outlook Express?
It provides a straight forward way of blocking junk.
SFWIW:
When Verizon dumped their "News" service, Astraweb made a direct
substitution into O/E retaining all the "kill list" members.
A lifetime supply of Astraweb is either $10 or $25 based on usage,
which BTW also provides binary access.
Why did I choose Astraweb?
Simple, more satisfied users on the wreck than anything else, per my
unscientific poll.
YMMV
Lew
On Oct 9, 2:47=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> FrozenNorth wrote:
> > -MIKE- wrote:
> >> Charlie Self wrote:
> >>> For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
> >>> reported as spam.
>
> >>> Now, they come right back.
>
> >>> WTF is the point of reporting them, then? I popped a couple on the
> >>> first page three times, but each time I left the page and came back,
> >>> there the happy horseshit was again.
>
> >> I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
> >> Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providin=
g
> >> a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
>
> >> It's like someone stopping to help you change a flat tire, and you sta=
rt
> >> complaining that they're not doing enough of the work. =A0 =A0:-)
>
> > Not exactly correct, there are google groups which are not part of usen=
et.
>
> Well, in context, I am correct. =A0Riiiiiight?
> Considering that it was posted in this newsgroup, which is usenet.
>
> Wow, you guys are hilarious.
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Somebody is hilarious. The program presented a method for ditching
jackasses, then, evidently, somehow decided that wasn't appropriate.
If you think that's bitching about something it shouldn't do, ask
yourself this simple question: why in the HELL did they start out
doing it?
They didn't offer the service originally. Then they offered it. Then
they didn't offer it.
WTF. I don't hit this NG often any more, anyway. There's too much time
spent by nitpicking wipes, instead of on woodworking, so it hasn't
much appeal.
If Google jumps on paid access, I'm gone, and, I suspect, so are
almost all the others who use it. I'll switch search and email as well.
In article <[email protected]>, Chris
Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/09/2009 12:24 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
> > I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
> > Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providing
> > a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
>
> There's no such thing as a unified "usenet". Google takes a usenet
> feed, archives it, and then makes it visible via Google Groups.
>
> They could easily run spam filters on the usenet messages and delete the
> spam.
Like a lot of decent news providers do.
Personally, I kill any post originating from Google Groups.
In article <[email protected]>, -MIKE-
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
> > On 10/09/2009 01:03 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> >
> >> If it sucks so bad, get a real usenet server service and reader.
> >
> > In case you didn't notice, notbob is using slrn on linux. I think that
> > counts.
> >
> > Chris
>
> Great, then he can quit complaining about googlegroups.
Google groups is a major source of usenet spam, and Google refuses to
do anything about it.
In article <[email protected]>, Maxwell Lol
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
> > reported as spam.
> >
> > Now, they come right back.
>
> BTW I never see them. Use a better USENET provider...
Ain't gonna happen, Charlie's happy posting through Google Groups,
until he he gets pissed off at them for some reason. Then he bitches
here, and people tell him to get a real news provider, and he tells us
all how Google does all he needs...
He'll be back again in about 9 months with the same complaint, but
Google is good enough for him and it's too much trouble to change.
Lather, rinse and repeat.
In article <[email protected]>, -MIKE-
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Usenet's days are numbered, anyway. Have been for a while. I'd say
> it's in hospice, at best.
Snort!
Death of USENET! Film at 11!
Tell you what... See you here in 10 years, and I'll remind you how
wrong you were/are.
That will be the 40th anniversary of usenet, BTW.
Chris Friesen <[email protected]> writes:
>On 10/09/2009 12:24 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>> I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
>> Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providing
>> a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
>
>There's no such thing as a unified "usenet". Google takes a usenet
>feed, archives it, and then makes it visible via Google Groups.
>
>They could easily run spam filters on the usenet messages and delete the
>spam.
Shouldn't an "archive" archive everything? I could see sticking a spam
filter between the archive and their archive "browser", but not between
the incoming feed and the archive.
scott
On Oct 10, 1:20=A0am, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Maxwell Lol
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Charlie Self <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > > For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
> > > reported as spam.
>
> > > Now, they come right back.
>
> > BTW I never see them. =A0Use a better USENET provider...
>
> Ain't gonna happen, Charlie's happy posting through Google Groups,
> until he he gets pissed off at them for some reason. Then he bitches
> here, and people tell him to =A0get a real news provider, and he tells us
> all how Google does all he needs...
>
> He'll be back again in about 9 =A0months with the same complaint, but
> Google is good enough for him and it's too much trouble to change.
>
> Lather, rinse and repeat.
I've explained it again, above for those having an age-related memory
lapse. At one point, my memory tells me there was some little program
that would provide a method of blanking out the offending dipshits,
but that went away with all the other things on my HD, and Foxmire
seems incapable of saving much of what I thought it would save, so...
On Oct 9, 10:00=A0pm, Maxwell Lol <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self <[email protected]> writes:
> > For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
> > reported as spam.
>
> > Now, they come right back.
>
> BTW I never see them. =A0Use a better USENET provider....
Until about three weeks ago, this frigging machine wouldn't allow me
to do so. I don't know what had gotten into my registry, but it was
weird. Then my hard drive went TA. Now, I'm reconstructing that, which
has already cost me a lot of time. When time permits, I'll move off GG
and onto something more sensible, but time may not permit this year.
On Oct 12, 11:06=A0am, Pat Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> Spend a few bucks($3.95) and use these guys for a while...
>
> http://www.teranews.com/
>
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
> > reported as spam.
>
> > Now, they come right back.
>
> > WTF is the point of reporting them, then? I popped a couple on the
> > first page three times, but each time I left the page and came back,
> > there the happy horseshit was again.
Pat,
Thanks. It's bookmarked and I'll hit it later today when my wife isn't
hollering about lunch.
On Oct 9, 1:53=A0pm, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
> It very much does have control over the searching of data on its
> servers. =A0It used to be google allowed you to look at old archived
> messages going clear back to the middle 80s. =A0The groups/articles
> could be searched and crossed ref'd and user/group data could be
> gleaned using grougle's advanced search engine. =A0Info like number of
> posts, in which group, in any given month and year, was easily
> obtainable. =A0No more.
Not true, nb.
It does require one more step. If you are using Google to search this
group, go to "advanced search" and you can specify the search
parameters according to your needs, including time.
I believe it will search back to '81 or '84, something along those
lines.
Searching archives is still the best use of this group if you know
what you are looking for when you start.
Robert
Charlie Self <[email protected]> writes:
> For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
> reported as spam.
>
> Now, they come right back.
BTW I never see them. Use a better USENET provider....
On 10/09/2009 12:24 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
> Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providing
> a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
There's no such thing as a unified "usenet". Google takes a usenet
feed, archives it, and then makes it visible via Google Groups.
They could easily run spam filters on the usenet messages and delete the
spam.
Chris
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Chris
> Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/09/2009 12:24 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>>> I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
>>> Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providing
>>> a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
>> There's no such thing as a unified "usenet". Google takes a usenet
>> feed, archives it, and then makes it visible via Google Groups.
>>
>> They could easily run spam filters on the usenet messages and delete the
>> spam.
>
> Like a lot of decent news providers do.
>
> Personally, I kill any post originating from Google Groups.
The silly thing is their filters are *very* good on gmail accounts, I
get almost no spam in my inbox, but the spam folder is always full.
Why they can't filter google groups, I have no idea. Maybe it is the
advertising they get to pop up besides the posts.
--
Froz...
-MIKE- wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>> For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
>> reported as spam.
>>
>> Now, they come right back.
>>
>> WTF is the point of reporting them, then? I popped a couple on the
>> first page three times, but each time I left the page and came back,
>> there the happy horseshit was again.
>
>
> I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
> Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providing
> a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
>
> It's like someone stopping to help you change a flat tire, and you start
> complaining that they're not doing enough of the work. :-)
>
Not exactly correct, there are google groups which are not part of usenet.
--
Froz...
notbob <[email protected]> writes:
>On 2009-10-09, Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't an "archive" archive everything? I could see sticking a spam
>> filter between the archive and their archive "browser", but not between
>> the incoming feed and the archive.
>
>uhmmm... whatever.
A very sophisticated response, indeed.
scott
On Oct 10, 8:07=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Charlie:
>
> I am reminded that today (10/10) is your Birthday! =A0Have a great day!
>
> Here's some sawdust on you!
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
Thanks, Han. That was Saturday, of course, and today is that most
wonderful day of the week, Monday.
On Oct 9, 1:10 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
> reported as spam.
>
> Now, they come right back.
>
> WTF is the point of reporting them, then? I popped a couple on the
> first page three times, but each time I left the page and came back,
> there the happy horseshit was again.
Charlie - not to necessarily defend Google, but I recently saw an
interview on a cable show with some of the Google guys that are in
charge of their newsgroup/groups department.
They said that the sheer amount of spam mails they get in the
newsgroups which require no registering, have no tracking, and are
unmoderated is overwhelming.
According to them, it's just like any other autobot spam mailer
victim. The bot may send out the same spam (or slightly different)
from the same author (ususally not) many hundreds of times a day.
And after a while, the spammers know that their ISP address will
simply be blocked, so that finishes them off. They simply set up a
new one, and they are off and running in another 30 minutes (or less
if they buy blocks).
They literally can't keep up. But they must be doing something; note
how we see spams for shoes, purses, watches, etc., and no more about
dick disease cures? Remember when this group was overwhelmed with
spam trash for extending, prolonging and encouraging penile growth?
And as the guy on the show said, since it is a free service, they only
have about 3 folks working on the entire newsgroup situation (as
opposed to the formal google groups).
He did allow that there were newsgroups they had simply given up on as
they find so many ways to get around their traps such as in the
rec.cooking and rec.photo groups they gave up.
Essentially, his message was that if they get enough notices of spam,
they pay attention. If they get nothing, they let the auto detect run
and handle it. The spams we report (I'm right there with you on
reporting) are actually removed one at a time, by a real person to
make sure that it isn't an honest post.
I tried this out by reporting a couple of particularly annoying folks
on another ng I frequent, and no, their posts weren't removed. So
someone reads them!
It is annoying... but not unlivable.
Robert
On Oct 9, 4:40=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
> > On 10/09/2009 01:03 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
> >> If it sucks so bad, get a real usenet server service and reader.
>
> > In case you didn't notice, notbob is using slrn on linux. =A0I think th=
at
> > counts.
>
> > Chris
>
> Great, then he can quit complaining about googlegroups.
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
You really don't pay attention: I was the one complaining.
Charlie Self wrote:
> For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
> reported as spam.
>
> Now, they come right back.
>
> WTF is the point of reporting them, then? I popped a couple on the
> first page three times, but each time I left the page and came back,
> there the happy horseshit was again.
I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providing
a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
It's like someone stopping to help you change a flat tire, and you start
complaining that they're not doing enough of the work. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
FrozenNorth wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
>>> reported as spam.
>>>
>>> Now, they come right back.
>>>
>>> WTF is the point of reporting them, then? I popped a couple on the
>>> first page three times, but each time I left the page and came back,
>>> there the happy horseshit was again.
>>
>>
>> I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
>> Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providing
>> a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
>>
>> It's like someone stopping to help you change a flat tire, and you start
>> complaining that they're not doing enough of the work. :-)
>>
> Not exactly correct, there are google groups which are not part of usenet.
>
Well, in context, I am correct. Riiiiiight?
Considering that it was posted in this newsgroup, which is usenet.
Wow, you guys are hilarious.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-10-09, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
>> Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providing
>> a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
>
> It very much does have control over the searching of data on its
> servers. It used to be google allowed you to look at old archived
> messages going clear back to the middle 80s. The groups/articles
> could be searched and crossed ref'd and user/group data could be
> gleaned using grougle's advanced search engine. Info like number of
> posts, in which group, in any given month and year, was easily
> obtainable. No more.
>
> In the last few weeks most of this functionality has disappeared, a
> click on a users profile bringing up only a few recent posts. Google
> always did reduce the granularity of user data from the original
> dejanews, which would even provide all actual IP addresses used by a
> poster. Very handy for detecting sock puppets, trolls, etc. Google
> killed that right out of the gate when they acquired dejanews.
>
> I suspect grougle is gearing up for paid access. We'll see.
>
> nb
Providing a search of something isn't having control over it.
All that says it that they treat it like the rest of the internet, they
provide searching, with no control over content.
If it sucks so bad, get a real usenet server service and reader.
I think google groups sucked since they first started their mirror
service.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-10-09, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Providing a search of something isn't having control over it.
>
> If they provided access to it and then stopped providing access it,
> that damn sure is control.
>
Ok. You're right. Goodbye.
>> If it sucks so bad, get a real usenet server service and reader.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? I do use a real server and reader.
>
>> I think google groups sucked since they first started their mirror
>> service.
>
> I think you have no clue what you're talking about.
>
> nb
>
>
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
-MIKE- wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>> On 2009-10-09, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
>>> Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply
>>> providing a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no
>>> control.
>>
>> It very much does have control over the searching of data on its
>> servers. It used to be google allowed you to look at old archived
>> messages going clear back to the middle 80s. The groups/articles
>> could be searched and crossed ref'd and user/group data could be
>> gleaned using grougle's advanced search engine. Info like number of
>> posts, in which group, in any given month and year, was easily
>> obtainable. No more.
>>
>> In the last few weeks most of this functionality has disappeared, a
>> click on a users profile bringing up only a few recent posts. Google
>> always did reduce the granularity of user data from the original
>> dejanews, which would even provide all actual IP addresses used by a
>> poster. Very handy for detecting sock puppets, trolls, etc. Google
>> killed that right out of the gate when they acquired dejanews.
>>
>> I suspect grougle is gearing up for paid access. We'll see.
>>
>> nb
>
> Providing a search of something isn't having control over it.
>
> All that says it that they treat it like the rest of the internet,
> they provide searching, with no control over content.
>
> If it sucks so bad, get a real usenet server service and reader.
>
> I think google groups sucked since they first started their mirror
> service.
If Google starts charging for groups that would be a good thing IMO. A lot
of the small children and mental defectives and spammers and the rest who
post from there would likely go away.
Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 10/09/2009 01:03 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
>> If it sucks so bad, get a real usenet server service and reader.
>
> In case you didn't notice, notbob is using slrn on linux. I think that
> counts.
>
> Chris
Great, then he can quit complaining about googlegroups.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> notbob <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 2009-10-09, Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Shouldn't an "archive" archive everything? I could see sticking a spam
>>> filter between the archive and their archive "browser", but not between
>>> the incoming feed and the archive.
>> uhmmm... whatever.
>
> A very sophisticated response, indeed.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33223848/
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
In article <[email protected]>, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>> For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
>> reported as spam.
>>
>> Now, they come right back.
>>
>> WTF is the point of reporting them, then? I popped a couple on the
>> first page three times, but each time I left the page and came back,
>> there the happy horseshit was again.
>
>
>I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
>Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providing
>a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
They *also* provide a portal through which people can *post* to usenet, and
that's how the overwhelming majority of the spam in usenet gets there.
>
>It's like someone stopping to help you change a flat tire, and you start
>complaining that they're not doing enough of the work.
More like the guy that stops to help you change a flat tire is the same guy
that scattered the 50# box of roofing nails in the road in the first place.
If Google provided a read-only interface like Deja did -- and like Google
*used* to -- there would be no cause for complaining to Google about the spam.
But make no mistake: the primary reason the spam is there is because Google
allows it to be posted through their servers.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
>>> reported as spam.
>>>
>>> Now, they come right back.
>>>
>>> WTF is the point of reporting them, then? I popped a couple on the
>>> first page three times, but each time I left the page and came back,
>>> there the happy horseshit was again.
>>
>> I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
>> Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providing
>> a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
>
> They *also* provide a portal through which people can *post* to usenet, and
> that's how the overwhelming majority of the spam in usenet gets there.
>> It's like someone stopping to help you change a flat tire, and you start
>> complaining that they're not doing enough of the work.
>
> More like the guy that stops to help you change a flat tire is the same guy
> that scattered the 50# box of roofing nails in the road in the first place.
>
Good one.
> If Google provided a read-only interface like Deja did -- and like Google
> *used* to -- there would be no cause for complaining to Google about the spam.
> But make no mistake: the primary reason the spam is there is because Google
> allows it to be posted through their servers.
We all use this newsgroup and this discussion is taking place here....
and I haven't see spam all day long... or even all week for that matter.
If I did, I certainly forgot about it, so it doesn't seem to be a
problem for people who don't use google for usenet.
So like I said before, googlegroups sucks, get a real usenet account and
use a dedicated reader. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
In article <[email protected]>, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, -MIKE-
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>>> For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
>>>> reported as spam.
>>>>
>>>> Now, they come right back.
>>>>
>>>> WTF is the point of reporting them, then? I popped a couple on the
>>>> first page three times, but each time I left the page and came back,
>>>> there the happy horseshit was again.
>>>
>>> I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
>>> Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providing
>>> a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
>>
>> They *also* provide a portal through which people can *post* to usenet, and
>> that's how the overwhelming majority of the spam in usenet gets there.
>>> It's like someone stopping to help you change a flat tire, and you start
>>> complaining that they're not doing enough of the work.
>>
>> More like the guy that stops to help you change a flat tire is the same guy
>> that scattered the 50# box of roofing nails in the road in the first place.
>>
>
>Good one.
>
>
>> If Google provided a read-only interface like Deja did -- and like Google
>> *used* to -- there would be no cause for complaining to Google about the
> spam.
>> But make no mistake: the primary reason the spam is there is because Google
>> allows it to be posted through their servers.
>
>We all use this newsgroup and this discussion is taking place here....
>and I haven't see spam all day long... or even all week for that matter.
>If I did, I certainly forgot about it, so it doesn't seem to be a
>problem for people who don't use google for usenet.
Incorrect. I see from your headers that you're using eternal-september.org to
access usenet -- as do I. EternalSeptember does a *very* good job of removing
the spam injected through Google; many other providers do not.
>
>So like I said before, googlegroups sucks, get a real usenet account and
>use a dedicated reader. :-)
That's how I've been accessing usenet for the last, oh, fifteen years or so. I
use Google only to access archived posts, never to read current traffic.
Doug Miller wrote:
>>> But make no mistake: the primary reason the spam is there is because Google
>>> allows it to be posted through their servers.
>> We all use this newsgroup and this discussion is taking place here....
>> and I haven't see spam all day long... or even all week for that matter.
>> If I did, I certainly forgot about it, so it doesn't seem to be a
>> problem for people who don't use google for usenet.
>
> Incorrect. I see from your headers that you're using eternal-september.org to
> access usenet -- as do I. EternalSeptember does a *very* good job of removing
> the spam injected through Google; many other providers do not.
Hmmm, you mean there's *another free* way to access usenet that doesn't
give one a bunch of reasons to complain about it? :-)
>> So like I said before, googlegroups sucks, get a real usenet account and
>> use a dedicated reader. :-)
>
> That's how I've been accessing usenet for the last, oh, fifteen years or so. I
> use Google only to access archived posts, never to read current traffic.
I've used it to search, many times and haven't run into a bunch of spam
either.
Usenet's days are numbered, anyway. Have been for a while. I'd say
it's in hospice, at best.
I'll enjoy it while it lasts.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> Usenet's days are numbered, anyway. Have been for a while. I'd say
>> it's in hospice, at best.
>
> Snort!
>
> Death of USENET! Film at 11!
>
> Tell you what... See you here in 10 years, and I'll remind you how
> wrong you were/are.
>
> That will be the 40th anniversary of usenet, BTW.
I've been on the train, practically since it left the station.
I've seen the rise and decline in popularity.
As the web gets faster and CPU's get faster, things move over to web
based forums. Right now, there are people having the same discussions
we are, in real time with one another, with streaming video, giving
demonstrations.... from their phones.
Most groups I frequented are already dead. This one is a rare exception
of one who's frequenters seem to prefer text only interface.
I would speculate that it has to do with the average age of participants
in here being probably around 45 or higher. There's an "old guy"
mentality in here, that rejects anything "new fangled." It's not a
criticism, just an observation. I find myself on the fence many times
because in my job, I have to be somewhat cutting edge on trends, but in
my life I prefer some predictability and grounding.
Usenet is the pay phone or cassette tape of the internet.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
-MIKE- wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>> Usenet's days are numbered, anyway. Have been for a while. I'd say
>>> it's in hospice, at best.
>>
>> Snort!
>>
>> Death of USENET! Film at 11!
>>
>> Tell you what... See you here in 10 years, and I'll remind you how
>> wrong you were/are.
>>
>> That will be the 40th anniversary of usenet, BTW.
>
> I've been on the train, practically since it left the station.
> I've seen the rise and decline in popularity.
> As the web gets faster and CPU's get faster, things move over to web
> based forums. Right now, there are people having the same discussions
> we are, in real time with one another, with streaming video, giving
> demonstrations.... from their phones.
>
> Most groups I frequented are already dead. This one is a rare
> exception of one who's frequenters seem to prefer text only interface.
>
> I would speculate that it has to do with the average age of
> participants in here being probably around 45 or higher. There's an
> "old guy" mentality in here, that rejects anything "new fangled."
> It's not a criticism, just an observation. I find myself on the
> fence many times because in my job, I have to be somewhat cutting
> edge on trends, but in my life I prefer some predictability and
> grounding.
>
> Usenet is the pay phone or cassette tape of the internet.
I went to work for Hamilton-Standard in 1979. They told me that they were
going to phase out propellers in 5 years. Thirty years later they're still
making them. It paid well but it was the most miserable job I've ever had
because they had the "this department is shutting down" attitude the whole
time I was there.
J. Clarke wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>>> Usenet's days are numbered, anyway. Have been for a while. I'd say
>>>> it's in hospice, at best.
>>> Snort!
>>>
>>> Death of USENET! Film at 11!
>>>
>>> Tell you what... See you here in 10 years, and I'll remind you how
>>> wrong you were/are.
>>>
>>> That will be the 40th anniversary of usenet, BTW.
>> I've been on the train, practically since it left the station.
>> I've seen the rise and decline in popularity.
>> As the web gets faster and CPU's get faster, things move over to web
>> based forums. Right now, there are people having the same discussions
>> we are, in real time with one another, with streaming video, giving
>> demonstrations.... from their phones.
>>
>> Most groups I frequented are already dead. This one is a rare
>> exception of one who's frequenters seem to prefer text only interface.
>>
>> I would speculate that it has to do with the average age of
>> participants in here being probably around 45 or higher. There's an
>> "old guy" mentality in here, that rejects anything "new fangled."
>> It's not a criticism, just an observation. I find myself on the
>> fence many times because in my job, I have to be somewhat cutting
>> edge on trends, but in my life I prefer some predictability and
>> grounding.
>>
>> Usenet is the pay phone or cassette tape of the internet.
>
> I went to work for Hamilton-Standard in 1979. They told me that they were
> going to phase out propellers in 5 years. Thirty years later they're still
> making them. It paid well but it was the most miserable job I've ever had
> because they had the "this department is shutting down" attitude the whole
> time I was there.
I work at IBM and for many years I was on the OS/2 project (first in
Boca Raton, then in Austin, until it finally died), and all throughout
that time we never ceased to hear chastising remarks about new tools or
applications that were implemented as "console" (command line)
applications instead of "Presentation Manager" (windows) applications
(What? You want a GUI-only C++ compiler product with no way to invoke
it from the command line? They actually produced such an animal!).
This was because the command line was not "strategic" and would
eventually be "going away". Yeah right.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Spend a few bucks($3.95) and use these guys for a while...
http://www.teranews.com/
Charlie Self wrote:
> For a bit there, Google was removing or at least covering up posts
> reported as spam.
>
> Now, they come right back.
>
> WTF is the point of reporting them, then? I popped a couple on the
> first page three times, but each time I left the page and came back,
> there the happy horseshit was again.
On 2009-10-09, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I see a lot of people complaining about Google Groups.
> Technically, there are no such things, since google is simply providing
> a free web mirror to browse usenet, over which it has no control.
It very much does have control over the searching of data on its
servers. It used to be google allowed you to look at old archived
messages going clear back to the middle 80s. The groups/articles
could be searched and crossed ref'd and user/group data could be
gleaned using grougle's advanced search engine. Info like number of
posts, in which group, in any given month and year, was easily
obtainable. No more.
In the last few weeks most of this functionality has disappeared, a
click on a users profile bringing up only a few recent posts. Google
always did reduce the granularity of user data from the original
dejanews, which would even provide all actual IP addresses used by a
poster. Very handy for detecting sock puppets, trolls, etc. Google
killed that right out of the gate when they acquired dejanews.
I suspect grougle is gearing up for paid access. We'll see.
nb
On 2009-10-09, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> Providing a search of something isn't having control over it.
If they provided access to it and then stopped providing access it,
that damn sure is control.
> If it sucks so bad, get a real usenet server service and reader.
What the hell are you talking about? I do use a real server and reader.
> I think google groups sucked since they first started their mirror
> service.
I think you have no clue what you're talking about.
nb
On 2009-10-09, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> Great, then he can quit complaining about googlegroups.
Google Groups, the usenet access service, is completely different than
google groups, the usenet archive service. The usenet access service
has much to complain about. In fact, it's a major menace, as pointed
out by others in this group.
On the bright side, the google usenet archiving service, of which I
was speaking of, is a good thing. Better yet, I've heard in other
groups I frequent, google now seems to be aware of a problem,
acknowledges it, and is taking steps ...or so I've heard. Time will
tell.
nb
On 2009-10-09, Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Shouldn't an "archive" archive everything? I could see sticking a spam
> filter between the archive and their archive "browser", but not between
> the incoming feed and the archive.
uhmmm... whatever.
Anyway, good news: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/usenet_fix/
nb
On 2009-10-10, Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
> A very sophisticated response, indeed.
It seemed appropriate.
nb
On 2009-10-10, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's about an accurate assessment of the problem as can be made. Some
> have gone so far as to filter any posts originating from Google. I
> haven't done that yet, but I may be forced to eventually.
I was under the impression pan was capable of blanket killing a group
(google) while still allowing exceptions to pass. I may be wrong, but
you may want to check your user docs.
nb
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:33:26 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
> If Google provided a read-only interface like Deja did -- and like
> Google *used* to -- there would be no cause for complaining to Google
> about the spam. But make no mistake: the primary reason the spam is
> there is because Google allows it to be posted through their servers.
That's about an accurate assessment of the problem as can be made. Some
have gone so far as to filter any posts originating from Google. I
haven't done that yet, but I may be forced to eventually.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw