In article <fu6ivk$fbv$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
K. A. Cannon <kcannon@insurgent.orgy> wrote:

Google does not care...contrary to what certain Google shills will
tell you.

A UDP will not work against Google.

An effective one would.

We'd need to get some financial reporters to ask Google about it.

hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) posted
0sadnSxtPc_A4ZrVnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@megapath.net> in news.groups on Thu,
17 Apr 2008 11:35:41 -0500:

I see...so punish all the alginate Google Gropes users because a few
idiot spammers are abusing the Google systems.
Spammers abuse anything they can get away with.

I can't argue with that truth.
But complaining about Google spam when there are server side and
client side alternatives isn't accomplishing anything.

An alternative view is:
... because google isn't doing enough to prevent spam
from their systems.

Google isn't set up to deal with the Spam from their systems.

Complaining to Google may do something to alleviate the problem in the
short term but long term Google will not work to stop spam completely
or effectively.

Steve Bonine<spb@pobox.com> wrote:
Patti Beadles wrote:

- Google won't do anything to stop its spam
That's not really true. Google does take action on spam complaints.
You could argue that they don't do _enough_ but for them it's a business
decision. The more they do, the more it costs.

In the *short* term it would indeed cost more, i.e. they would have to
act on spam complaints *and* develop anti-spam measures and put them
into place. In the *long* run, it would cost them *less*, because the
abuse desk could be scaled down substantially. Anyone who has any
experience with abuse desks and News administration would acknowledge
that.

But we don't even *know* *if* it's a business decision. All we can
'see' is indifference, i.e. they seem not to care.

- We will continue to have both content and spam from Google
Yes, and there are at least two reasons for this.

By the nature of its design, Google is an anonymous service. It's easy
to get a Google account, and thus it's easy to use it in inappropriate
ways. The alternative is to make it difficult to get a Google account.

No, the alternative is to make it difficult to get tens and hundreds
of accounts, and to get another account minutes after the previous one is
blocked, and to post zillions of posts in a short time, and to crosspost
to zillions of groups, etc., etc., you get the picture. Other NSPs have
these controls in place, 'even' some of the one-man bands.

This changes the nature of the offering in a very basic way. Lots of
people take advantage of the ability to easily get a Google email
address, use it for a specific purpose, and discard it when no longer
needed. Some of those people cause problems, but to punish them, one
must punish the legitimate users too.

Nope. See above.

[Agreed upon stuff deleted.]

K. A. Cannon <kcannon@insurgent.orgy> writes:

A UDP will not work against Google.

If giganews no longer accepts peer NNTP connections from google, that
will slow down spam. If they block all posts with a googlegroups, it
will help even more.

And if more peers do the same, it will make a difference. In theory.

On the otherside, giganews just bought supernews (wich excellent spam
filtering), and rumor has it that they fired all of the people from
supernews.

So "supernews" service is going downhill. It's sad. I don't
expect giganews to respond to user concerns. They need to see their
income impacted.

Perhaps there is a market for a USENET providor that blocks spam, and
the simplist way is to block posts with a googlegroups message ID.

Perhaps people would support such a service with their checkbook.
On the other hand, it's trivial for an end user to do the same thing.

So for UDP to work, we would either need to get the NNTP peers to take
action (the only admin I recall who was active in public forums is
Andrew from Supernews.)

Or to motivate the NNTP peers with money for superior service.

Neither approach sounds likely. Supernews, our brightest hope, wasn't
able to survive financially.

In article <86prsozox8.fsf@localhost.localdomain>,
Maxwell Lol <nospam@com.invalid> wrote:

Neither approach sounds likely. Supernews, our brightest hope, wasn't
able to survive financially.

I think this may be an interesting chicken-and-egg problem.

Usenet is dying,

Frank Slootweg wrote:
Steve Bonine<spb@pobox.com> wrote:
Patti Beadles wrote:

- Google won't do anything to stop its spam
That's not really true. Google does take action on spam complaints.
You could argue that they don't do _enough_ but for them it's a business
decision. The more they do, the more it costs.

In the *short* term it would indeed cost more, i.e. they would have to
act on spam complaints *and* develop anti-spam measures and put them
into place. In the *long* run, it would cost them *less*, because the
abuse desk could be scaled down substantially. Anyone who has any
experience with abuse desks and News administration would acknowledge
that.

But we don't even *know* *if* it's a business decision. All we can
'see' is indifference, i.e. they seem not to care.

- We will continue to have both content and spam from Google
Yes, and there are at least two reasons for this.

By the nature of its design, Google is an anonymous service. It's easy
to get a Google account, and thus it's easy to use it in inappropriate
ways. The alternative is to make it difficult to get a Google account.

No, the alternative is to make it difficult to get tens and hundreds
of accounts, and to get another account minutes after the previous one is
blocked, and to post zillions of posts in a short time, and to crosspost
to zillions of groups, etc., etc., you get the picture. Other NSPs have
these controls in place, 'even' some of the one-man bands.

This changes the nature of the offering in a very basic way. Lots of
people take advantage of the ability to easily get a Google email
address, use it for a specific purpose, and discard it when no longer
needed. Some of those people cause problems, but to punish them, one
must punish the legitimate users too.

Nope. See above.

[Agreed upon stuff deleted.]


I'm listening at Google Inc.'s 1st Quarter Conference call. It will be
archived ...

http://finance.aol.com/event/google-inc/goog/nas/conference-calls

I see...so punish all the alginate Google Gropes users because a few
idiot spammers are abusing the Google systems.

sethb@panix.com (Seth) posted <fu877c$1qr$1@reader2.panix.com> in
news.groups on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:08:28 +0000 (UTC):

In article <fu6ivk$fbv$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
K. A. Cannon <kcannon@insurgent.orgy> wrote:

Google does not care...contrary to what certain Google shills will
tell you.

A UDP will not work against Google.

An effective one would.

There's little chance of there being an effective UDP.

We'd need to get some financial reporters to ask Google about it.

I don't know any financial reporters...do you?

We're about to roll out a server that does exactly that to see what
happens. We'll let our users choose which to connect to.

K. A. Cannon wrote:

K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is why no one takes Databasix seriously.

This guy is in "management" ? Feh.

K. A. Cannon wrote:

K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is why no one takes Databasix seriously.

This guy is in "management" ? Feh.

Al Coholak wrote:
K. A. Cannon wrote:

K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is why no one takes Databasix seriously.

This guy is in "management" ? Feh.




No one?

Al Coholak wrote:
K. A. Cannon wrote:

K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is why no one takes Databasix seriously.

This guy is in "management" ? Feh.




No one?

Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> posted
fu8q91$q7q$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com> in news.groups on Thu, 17
Apr 2008 20:35:55 -0400:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:22:35 -0400, K. A. Cannon
kcannon@insurgent.orgy> wrote:


I see...so punish all the alginate Google Gropes users because a few
idiot spammers are abusing the Google systems.

Thaat's what a UDP is.

If it happens....and I have serious doubts a UDP could happen...
the exclusion of Google will lead to a contraction of traffic on
UseNet as a whole.
Not a good thing.

Ideally, the UDP (if it ever happened - I'm not holding my breath, since
you'd need to convince Giganews, Supernews, etc, to honour it, as well,
which would have some implications for their commercial service) would be a
short-term thing: Long enough to catch Google Inc.'s attention and make
them do something about the serious garbage coming through their portal.

Personally, I'd say the method to solve most of it would be if Google made
posting to Usenet a "premium" service - Charge $5.00 a month or something
like that - A good percentage of ko0ks would never pay for a public posting
account, since it would identify them. (Or there would be warrant-able
records that would identify them)