-- spam, news sources, and Goosle groups

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Mathematics Forum » -- spam, news sources, and Goosle groups

Page 8 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Author

Message

Wayne Brown

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:56 am

Guest

In news.groups quasi <quasi@null.set> wrote:

Quote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:12:27 -0700, William Elliot
marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, WindsorFox<SS> wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article <fub3ms$2od$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Gary L.
Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:

At $62 a year, why would I consider your service over individual.net at
less than 25% of that, and my own client-side filtering?
Because we're DataBasix. Why else?

That answers that. Cheers.

Not sure where you got that price from either, I'm seeing $51 a
year. Hell why pay a German college, Aioe is free.

How good of a news server is it?

Probably fine, but there's no way that a free usenet server could
handle the full volume of Google Groups users, if they were all to
switch over.

Not to mention the learning curve of installing and configuring and
using a newsreader.

Sounds like an excellent way of winnowing the wheat from the chaff.

--
Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net>

Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)

Brian Mailman

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:48 am

Guest

Phil Carmody wrote:

Quote:

Brian Mailman <bmailman@sfo.invalid> writes:
Phil Carmody wrote:
Suggestion - now it's newgrouped, XP all rants to alt.google-sucks

It's not very well propagated at 34.7% and it seems to be missing on
some popular servers:
http://groupsearch.aacity.net/cgi-bin/prop.pl?action=search&group=alt.google-sucks&sorting=group

What I'd suggest doing is put a .sig line as an "ad" when you're
posting on topic in a group. Something like "alt.google-sucks has now
been newgrouped. If your news server isn't carrying it, ask your
system administrator to add it to the the active file."

I think Adam can phrase it better, though.

Well, it appears that in sci.math a minimal how-and-why-to-
avoid-google FAQ is coming together, it's certainly as on
topic in that as anything else is. I have certainly considered
adding a line to my .sig to address the issue of how google
groups sucks, and how to get more information about alleviating
the problem.

That's great, but I was addressing the issue of getting the group
propagated.

B/

Michael Black

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:53 pm

Guest

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Wayne Brown wrote:

Quote:

Not to mention the learning curve of installing and configuring and
using a newsreader.

Sounds like an excellent way of winnowing the wheat from the chaff.

The puzzler is that nobody thought it was too steep a climb in the old

days, though of course in the older days one tended to use a newsreader
at wherever they dialed into.

What's really being said is that the masses are morons, and they cannot
do even a tiny bit of configuring. It takes very little to configure
a newsreader, and if someone has a problem then likely their ISP doesn't
bother putting the details up. Some ISPs even go a step further, and
include details of specific newsreaders (though oddly the Ottawa Freenet
where I post to has such detail for GUI newsreaders but not for the old
standards).

I just saw someone spout off in a Linux newsgroup that ignoring google
posters is "bad for the newbie" because they won't be able to configure
a newsreader without access to the newsgroups. His statement makes
it sound like anyone using Windows or a Mac has no pre-existing knowledge
of Usenet, but will somehow find their way in because they want to run
Linux. Surely such people will find a web forum long before they head
towards Usenet (unless they stumble on google and think it's just a
glorified web forum).

I'm more concerned about the behaviour of posters from google than
where they post from (though I state that because elsewhere some seem
to act like merely posting from google is reason to ignore them). But
like I said, some of the issue we are suffering from is the lack of
those steps we used to take to get to Usenet. I wouldn't so much
consider that a filter, but just a priming so much of the troublesome
posting gets reduced.

Michael

Whiskers

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:03 pm

Guest

On 2008-04-21, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

Quote:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Wayne Brown wrote:

Not to mention the learning curve of installing and configuring and
using a newsreader.

Sounds like an excellent way of winnowing the wheat from the chaff.

The puzzler is that nobody thought it was too steep a climb in the old
days, though of course in the older days one tended to use a newsreader
at wherever they dialed into.

[...]

Quote:

I just saw someone spout off in a Linux newsgroup that ignoring google
posters is "bad for the newbie" because they won't be able to configure
a newsreader without access to the newsgroups. His statement makes
it sound like anyone using Windows or a Mac has no pre-existing knowledge
of Usenet, but will somehow find their way in because they want to run
Linux. Surely such people will find a web forum long before they head
towards Usenet (unless they stumble on google and think it's just a
glorified web forum).

[...]

I'll offer up my own experience when a newbie, at this point.

I'd first heard of newsgroups back in the late '70s, I think - I can
remember reading in a computer magazine about the scandal of all the
possibly dubious stuff that was bound to appear in the new alt.* hierarchy
and how that would rapidly bring about the demise of all newsgroups ...

I didn't get on line for myself until 2000. By then I was reasonably
computer savvy (at least, DOS-savvy and somewhat familiar with Windows
3.1) but pretty much ignorant of anything to do with "the internet", and
really only intending to get up to speed with email.

My new (to me) computer came with Windows 98SE, and I found Outlook
Express easily enough after I'd used an ISP's CD to set up a dial-up
internet account; when I found that OE could 'do' newsgroups I was
immediately presented with a list of newsgroups which the ISP's set-up CD
had inserted into OE, with a subscription already established in NNQ and
one or two other groups - but I didn't pay much attention to any of them.
I did explore a bit and lurked in a few newsgroups I thought might be of
interest, but I didn't post - I was too unsure of myself. But I did learn
about using 'made-up' names and 'disposable' email addresses instead of
'real' ones.

Meanwhile I'd found some web forums; I even subscribed to one just to
practice in. It looked a lot less daunting than the newsgroups I was
lurking in, so it felt safer. But very frustrating and expensive over
dial-up!

Eventually I felt confident enough to start posting in newsgroups - but
not before I'd decided that OE was not to my liking as either email or
newsreader program; but that's another story.

I didn't discover Google Groups until after I'd been lurking in newsgroups
for a few months.

The point I'm making is that my first ISP set up my Windows computer for
me in such a way that I could dive straight into newsgroups without having
to configure anything. They had their own news-server, so there was o
reason why they shouldn't do that - and it probably saved a lot of
helpdesk resources making the initial set-up automatic for all those
customers who used the CD to get started.

These days, many ISPs, even 'big' ones, don't have a news-server of their
own or even outsourced, so many newbies' computers aren't getting a
news-reader pre-configured for them - and if my recent experience getting
a new Windows Vista computer installed for someone else is typical,
Internet Explorer comes with 'Home Page' and 'toolbars' set up to default
to the AOL portal &/or Google and a beginner isn't likely to know how to
get rid of those settings or even know that such a thing is possible - so
it isn't surprising we're getting a lot of ignorant newbies finding their
way into newsgroups via Google.

But the newbies aren't really the problem, however irritating (we're all
newbies at first!) - the problem with Google is the spam they facilitate.
Newbies can learn, given patient treatment (as I was). Spammers don't
care, and it seems Google don't care about spam either. The people who
suffer most from all the Google-permitted spam are those using the Google
Groups interface, so Google isn't doing itself any favours by letting the
abuse continue.

Perhaps that's the angle that needs to be stressed with Google - Google
Groups is being made very unpleasant for people to use by all the spam, so
people will abandon Google Groups in favour of better regulated web forums
elsewhere. That will lose Google a revenue stream from the adverts they
insert in the GG web pages, and damage Google's reputation both with the
general public and with advertising agencies.

Usenet doesn't need Google, but Google Groups is nothing without users.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Steve Bonine

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:50 pm

Guest

Xavier Roche wrote:

Quote:

[ Is it me or during the last supernews merge, the "text" features (the
advanced spam filtering installed by supernews admins) have disappeared ? ]

Perhaps this is because the SuperNews admins have disappeared.

Frank Slootweg

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:57 pm

Guest

Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
[...]

Quote:

But the newbies aren't really the problem, however irritating (we're all
newbies at first!) - the problem with Google is the spam they facilitate.
Newbies can learn, given patient treatment (as I was). Spammers don't
care, and it seems Google don't care about spam either. The people who
suffer most from all the Google-permitted spam are those using the Google
Groups interface, so Google isn't doing itself any favours by letting the
abuse continue.

Is the spam problem also present in the *non*-Usenet Google Groups
groups, i.e. the groups which are only present on the Google Groups
site? (I.e. groups without dots in their name, i.e such as for example
the "Gmail Help Discussion" group.)

If so, then I fully agree with your point. If not, i.e. the non-Usenet
groups are reasonably clean, then that's just more proof that Google
doesn't care about Usenet and just benefits from it.

Quote:

Perhaps that's the angle that needs to be stressed with Google - Google
Groups is being made very unpleasant for people to use by all the spam, so
people will abandon Google Groups in favour of better regulated web forums
elsewhere. That will lose Google a revenue stream from the adverts they
insert in the GG web pages, and damage Google's reputation both with the
general public and with advertising agencies.

Usenet doesn't need Google, but Google Groups is nothing without users.

Whiskers

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:32 pm

Guest

On 2008-04-21, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

Quote:

Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
[...]

But the newbies aren't really the problem, however irritating (we're all
newbies at first!) - the problem with Google is the spam they facilitate.
Newbies can learn, given patient treatment (as I was). Spammers don't
care, and it seems Google don't care about spam either. The people who
suffer most from all the Google-permitted spam are those using the Google
Groups interface, so Google isn't doing itself any favours by letting the
abuse continue.

Is the spam problem also present in the *non*-Usenet Google Groups
groups, i.e. the groups which are only present on the Google Groups
site? (I.e. groups without dots in their name, i.e such as for example
the "Gmail Help Discussion" group.)

If so, then I fully agree with your point. If not, i.e. the non-Usenet
groups are reasonably clean, then that's just more proof that Google
doesn't care about Usenet and just benefits from it.

[...]

I'm not a user of any of Google's web forums, but at least some of them
seem to require "membership" which might be enough to keep the spam to a
an acceptable level in those groups. Perhaps someone who does read a few
of Google's web forums could comment?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

WindsorFo

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:37 pm

Guest

Wayne Brown wrote:

Quote:

In news.groups Al Coholak <me@lcohol.ak> wrote:

This is why no one takes Databasix seriously.

I beg to differ. For months I tried to convince my ISP's news admins to
ignore the b8mbies and their "canonical" list of newsgroups, to no avail.
Then I pointed out DataBasix as an example of an NSP that does things
right (adding groups only at their own users' requests). Three days
later, my ISP made this announcement: "Alright, after much deliberation
internally, we have decided to not add new groups unless users request
them added." It appears that *someone* takes DataBasix seriously.

Gary > b8mbies

--

"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous
mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it
is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

WindsorFo

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:38 pm

Guest

Wayne Brown wrote:

Quote:

In news.groups quasi <quasi@null.set> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:12:27 -0700, William Elliot
marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, WindsorFox<SS> wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article <fub3ms$2od$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Gary L.
Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:

At $62 a year, why would I consider your service over individual.net at
less than 25% of that, and my own client-side filtering?
Because we're DataBasix. Why else?
That answers that. Cheers.
Not sure where you got that price from either, I'm seeing $51 a
year. Hell why pay a German college, Aioe is free.
How good of a news server is it?
Probably fine, but there's no way that a free usenet server could
handle the full volume of Google Groups users, if they were all to
switch over.

Not to mention the learning curve of installing and configuring and
using a newsreader.

Sounds like an excellent way of winnowing the wheat from the chaff.

Pardon??

--

"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous
mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it
is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

WindsorFo

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:55 pm

Guest

Frank Slootweg wrote:

Quote:

Yes, one of the problems is that many the "n00bs" that post this
junk don't have a clue where they are or what they are doing. All they
know is "this big list of ads" to put their ad into as well. Others like
the chinese junk spammer know full well what they are doing and do not GAF.

Looking through GG at a.w.w there are 25 spams for the same chinese crap
from the same chinese jerkoff using probably 20 different Google
accounts, and that's just page one. Of course through Homer I saw none
of his garbage.
--

"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous
mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it
is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

D. Kirkpatrick

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:43 pm

Guest

In article <slrng0q5f8.ck7.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:

Quote:

I'm not a user of any of Google's web forums, but at least some of them
seem to require "membership" which might be enough to keep the spam to a
an acceptable level in those groups. Perhaps someone who does read a few
of Google's web forums could comment?

It is possible to start a private discussion group.

And you can also set that to moderated status so that you can control
posts and membership.

Some people setting these up just don't take the time to learn how it
works.

I operate a Google group and have no issues what so ever with spam.
Occasionally a new member may be a spammer but it only takes on
emessage to show who they are and then you can summarily ban that user
ID.

Sure, they could come in with a new ID but that will get tiresome
after a while.

Interestingly enough, sometimes the user ID is a give away as to the
mission at hand.

DMK

Frank Slootweg

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:03 am

Guest

Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Quote:

And that - *not* adding a new group - is a good thing exactly *why*?

So what happens if (a NSPs) users do not request a new group, but it
is created anyway? Are they forced to read / post in it or something?

FWIW, I've no problem whatsoever with DataBasix doing what it's doing
(*if* [1] that is what they're doing). Their server, their rules and
all that jazz. But implying that it good thing *in general* seems rather
strange. Creating *more* groups than the "List of Big Eight Newsgroups"
I can understand, but *less*?

[1] Gary is currently involved in a proposal for a new 'official' group,
so I doubt if he/they is/are really so 'anti' B8MB as you seem to imply.

Kwyjibo

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:37 am

Guest

"Patti Beadles" <pattib@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:fu7v1s$s1o$1@blue.rahul.net...

Quote:

In article <66pbo5F2krc3tU1@mid.individual.net>,
Dave Sill <dave@sill.org> wrote:

I don't think removing spam is sufficient to reverse that trend.

I think that it's necessary but not sufficient.

So what do you propose?

At this point I don't know. Until I saw your well-reasoned
argument a few articles ago my recommendation would have been
a UDP against Google. I think you're right, though, about
cutting off your nose to spite your face, and that sent me
back to the drawing board.

The thing is that a UDP does not have to be implemented to be effective.
The mere threat of a UDP with a deadline would be enough to generate
sufficient bad press that Google would be forced to act. It's happened in
the past with ISPs such as Bigpond in Australia.

It's well known that GMail has one of the best spam filters in the business.
Why don't the morons apply the same filtering to the crap they propagate out
to usenet?

--
Kwyj.

Wayne Brown

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:36 am

Guest

In news.groups Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

Quote:

Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote:
In news.groups Al Coholak <me@lcohol.ak> wrote:

This is why no one takes Databasix seriously.

I beg to differ. For months I tried to convince my ISP's news admins to
ignore the b8mbies and their "canonical" list of newsgroups, to no avail.
Then I pointed out DataBasix as an example of an NSP that does things
right (adding groups only at their own users' requests). Three days
later, my ISP made this announcement: "Alright, after much deliberation
internally, we have decided to not add new groups unless users request
them added." It appears that *someone* takes DataBasix seriously.

And that - *not* adding a new group - is a good thing exactly *why*?

Anything that reduces the influence of the b8mbies is a Good Thing.

Quote:

So what happens if (a NSPs) users do not request a new group, but it
is created anyway? Are they forced to read / post in it or something?

We're forced to see our servers polluted by the noxious "b8mbie touch."

Quote:

FWIW, I've no problem whatsoever with DataBasix doing what it's doing
(*if* [1] that is what they're doing). Their server, their rules and
all that jazz. But implying that it good thing *in general* seems rather
strange. Creating *more* groups than the "List of Big Eight Newsgroups"
I can understand, but *less*?

I'm happy to see any number of groups created whenever requested by
anyone *except* the b8mbies.

Quote:

[1] Gary is currently involved in a proposal for a new 'official' group,
so I doubt if he/they is/are really so 'anti' B8MB as you seem to imply.

This is what Gary wrote in <f823gv$r07$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
(and what I quoted to my ISP's news admins) about the B8MB's "command"
to create rec.arts.sf.tv.jericho:

# BTW, we'll create it if one of our users asks for it just like any
# other newsgroup, not because these bozos say so.

--
Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net>

Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)

Wayne Brown

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:36 am

Guest

In news.groups "WindsorFox<SS>" <darkshado666@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Wayne Brown wrote:
In news.groups quasi <quasi@null.set> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:12:27 -0700, William Elliot
marsh@hevanet.remove.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, WindsorFox<SS> wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article <fub3ms$2od$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, Gary L.
Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:

At $62 a year, why would I consider your service over individual.net at
less than 25% of that, and my own client-side filtering?
Because we're DataBasix. Why else?
That answers that. Cheers.
Not sure where you got that price from either, I'm seeing $51 a
year. Hell why pay a German college, Aioe is free.
How good of a news server is it?
Probably fine, but there's no way that a free usenet server could
handle the full volume of Google Groups users, if they were all to
switch over.

Not to mention the learning curve of installing and configuring and
using a newsreader.

Sounds like an excellent way of winnowing the wheat from the chaff.

Pardon??

If Google weren't available, we would be spared the presence of those
who weren't willing to put in the necessary effort for learning to use
a real newsreader.

--
Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net>

Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)

Page 8 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:07 am Science Forum Index