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

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

[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.

Create comp.lang.c++.misc
Proponent Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com
1st RFD Posted <nan.20080331164751$2a72@killfile.org> - 2008-03-31

Well, this is in the *current* "[ADMIN] news.announce.newgroups queue
- 18 Apr 2008" (<news:nan.20080418070009$5393@killfile.org>):

Create comp.lang.c++.misc
Proponent Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com
1st RFD Posted <nan.20080331164751$2a72@killfile.org> - 2008-03-31

So it looks that Gary is (also) working *with* the B8MB. Bummer, heh?

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*?

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.

Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[Anti-B8MB rant deleted.]

[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.

Well, this is in the *current* "[ADMIN] news.announce.newgroups queue
- 18 Apr 2008" (<news:nan.20080418070009$5393@killfile.org>):

Create comp.lang.c++.misc
Proponent Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com
1st RFD Posted <nan.20080331164751$2a72@killfile.org> - 2008-03-31

So it looks that Gary is (also) working *with* the B8MB. Bummer, heh?

Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[Anti-B8MB rant deleted.]

[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.

Well, this is in the *current* "[ADMIN] news.announce.newgroups queue
- 18 Apr 2008" (<news:nan.20080418070009$5393@killfile.org>):

Create comp.lang.c++.misc
Proponent Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com
1st RFD Posted <nan.20080331164751$2a72@killfile.org> - 2008-03-31

So it looks that Gary is (also) working *with* the B8MB. Bummer, heh?

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

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.

Just as tiresome or more for you as you have to issue a new ID bad for

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

Please explain. watches0000@spam.u for example?

On 22 Apr 2008 09:03:04 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid
wrote:

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*?

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?

If you don't need them, why carry them? If you add every single
newsgroup that comes down the pike and those groups are flooded with
spam, then groups you want don't get the same retention.

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.

I'm entirely anti-b8mb and they (b8mb) know it. But since it's
currently the ONLY way to get comp groups created with good
propigation, then that's the game I play.

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

Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
On 22 Apr 2008 09:03:04 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid
wrote:

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*?

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?

If you don't need them, why carry them? If you add every single
newsgroup that comes down the pike and those groups are flooded with
spam, then groups you want don't get the same retention.

For non-Big-Eight groups, I can understand that, but very few Big
Eight groups get created, so for those I don't see the problems you
mention. But, as I said, your server, your rules. As to the
spam/retention, yes if you don't filter then spam can be a problem.

FWIW, on my server I also only carried the groups which my users read,
but that was different because my server was a leaf/'end' node (the
concept, not the software).

I did not *carry* all groups, but all groups did *exist*. The unused ones had a dummy article explaining that they
were (sofar) unused and that the reading of that dummy article would
caused the group to be fetched. If a fetched group wasn't read for X
days, the fetching stopped and the dummy article was re-inserted. Worked
quite well.

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.

I'm entirely anti-b8mb and they (b8mb) know it. But since it's
currently the ONLY way to get comp groups created with good
propigation, then that's the game I play.

Thanks for clarifying your position.

FWIW, I'm not anti, nor pro, I just realize and accept that *a* group
creation mechanism is needed and this is the currently existing one.

On 23 Apr 2008 10:57:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid
wrote:

Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
On 22 Apr 2008 09:03:04 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid
wrote:

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*?

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?

If you don't need them, why carry them? If you add every single
newsgroup that comes down the pike and those groups are flooded with
spam, then groups you want don't get the same retention.

For non-Big-Eight groups, I can understand that, but very few Big
Eight groups get created, so for those I don't see the problems you
mention. But, as I said, your server, your rules. As to the
spam/retention, yes if you don't filter then spam can be a problem.

FWIW, on my server I also only carried the groups which my users read,
but that was different because my server was a leaf/'end' node (the
concept, not the software).

So how, exactly, is it different?

I did not *carry* all groups, but all groups did *exist*. The unused
ones had a dummy article explaining that they were (sofar) unused and
that the reading of that dummy article would caused the group to be
fetched. If a fetched group wasn't read for X days, the fetching
stopped and the dummy article was re-inserted. Worked quite well.

Heh. So as long as someone keeps a group in their active list, you
keep it on your server. What's the difference?

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.

I'm entirely anti-b8mb and they (b8mb) know it. But since it's
currently the ONLY way to get comp groups created with good
propigation, then that's the game I play.

Thanks for clarifying your position.

FWIW, I'm not anti, nor pro, I just realize and accept that *a* group
creation mechanism is needed and this is the currently existing one.

I agree with your last statement. Problem is, the current one is
worse than the old one and the current one refuses to allow change to
a better one and ... ... ...

In article <3ZkPj.59593$Er2.49902@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote:

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

If you own a server and you're forced to see it polluted, you're an
incompetent administrator. If you don't own a server, it's not yours.

In news.groups Seth <sethb@panix.com> wrote:
In article <3ZkPj.59593$Er2.49902@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote:

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

If you own a server and you're forced to see it polluted, you're an
incompetent administrator. If you don't own a server, it's not yours.

The server I use isn't yours, either, so your opinion is irrelevant.

What matters is that few, if any, b8mbie-promoted groups will show up
there in the future.

In article <rxRPj.13898$DY1.5534@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote:
In news.groups Seth <sethb@panix.com> wrote:
In article <3ZkPj.59593$Er2.49902@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote:

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

If you own a server and you're forced to see it polluted, you're an
incompetent administrator. If you don't own a server, it's not yours.

The server I use isn't yours, either, so your opinion is irrelevant.

It looks like you use bellsouth. Whether or not my opinion is
relevant is up to them, not you.

What matters is that few, if any, b8mbie-promoted groups will show up
there in the future.

If they want. It's fine with me either way.