The good news: The spam problem (both the so-called "Thai spam" and the "mushroom spam") is gone from clc and clc++, because Google has (for
reasons of its own) banned both groups. What's funny about this is that normally people on these groups would be p*ssed off at Google for banning them, but in this instance, it is a happy coincidence that it stops the
spam. So, we're good with it.
The bad news is that it is still alive and well in many of the other
groups. Right now, comp.editors is getting slammed - about 1 spam per minute, 24/7.
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all newsgroups, not just these 2?
On 19/11/2023 11:23, Kenny McCormack wrote:[...]
The good news: The spam problem (both the so-called "Thai spam" and the
"mushroom spam") is gone from clc and clc++, because Google has (for
reasons of its own) banned both groups. What's funny about this is that
normally people on these groups would be p*ssed off at Google for banning
them, but in this instance, it is a happy coincidence that it stops the
spam. So, we're good with it.
The bad news is that it is still alive and well in many of the other
groups. Right now, comp.editors is getting slammed - about 1 spam per
minute, 24/7.
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all
newsgroups, not just these 2?
I don't see disconnection from GG as a Good Thing in the long term.
Many groups have the core of their followers using GG, and how many will
be persuaded to migrate to Usenet? But the real problem as I see it is
for long term survival groups need a stream of NEW users, and I'd guess
close to 100% of those come via GG, and hopefully they're persuaded
later by regulars of the advantages of Usenet.
When I started using the internet my ISP provided the connection
obviously, and a document explaining how to configure my computer to
connect to their email and USENET servers. So email, Usenet, and WWW
were the 3 motivations for "getting the internet", and newsgroups were
the place you went for general discussion. Those days are long gone,
and whilst my current ISP still has a Usenet service (subcontracted to Giganews) there's absolutely no mention of it in their advertising,
legal contracts, etc. and you have to hunt hard, knowing what you're
looking for, to find any help pages for it. So no new internet users
are going to think "Right, now how do I get a Usenet client, and where's
my Usenet server?!"Â If they eventually find Usenet it will likely be
via GG.
Disconnection from GG will cut off the supply of new users - a kind of
"kiss of death" for the long term health of the group. Groups with an essentially static membership could obviously continue as they are for
years, dieing slowly as their members age and finally depart the group.
It's like these groups are slowly dieing anyway, so another nail in the coffin for long-term Usenet health is hardly a problem - they want the
SPAM gone NOW...
It would be better long term if Google could apply some better SPAM
filtering technology, perhaps leveraging all their clever AI
technology?, to block the spam entering the system in the first place.
The good news: The spam problem (both the so-called "Thai spam" and the "mushroom spam") is gone from clc and clc++, because Google has (for
reasons of its own) banned both groups.
What's funny about this is that
normally people on these groups would be p*ssed off at Google for banning them, but in this instance, it is a happy coincidence that it stops the
spam. So, we're good with it.
The bad news is that it is still alive and well in many of the other
groups. Right now, comp.editors is getting slammed - about 1 spam per minute, 24/7.
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all newsgroups, not just these 2?
On 19/11/2023 11:23, Kenny McCormack wrote:
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all
newsgroups, not just these 2?
Yes just keep posting more spam using google Groups and they will ban as
soon as they come to know of them. Now you can't buy your drugs anymore! >Shame on you.
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all newsgroups, not just these 2?
is not just a GG/Usenet matter. They need to make it more
time-consuming to open a new google account, involve more user
interaction,
and put limits on the numbers of new accounts from the same
IP within a short time-frame.
It would be better long term if Google could apply some better SPAM
filtering technology, perhaps leveraging all their clever AI
technology?, to block the spam entering the system in the first place.
It's at the point of initial entry that SPAM can be handled with minimum hassle; once it's circulating around the system it's an order of
magnitude more effort to deal with. [Yeah, I get that Usenet SPAM is not Google's priority!]
On 2023-11-20, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
is not just a GG/Usenet matter. They need to make it more
time-consuming to open a new google account, involve more user
interaction,
Just not so demanding of time and interaction that it becomes easier to
set up Linux and run tin
Just not that it's easier to install Linux and run tin.
and put limits on the numbers of new accounts from the same
IP within a short time-frame.
"Same IP" only works against the pure amateurs who do not harness large numbers of different IP addresses by using botnets or their own IP
blocks.
Before we blame everything on Google, the first step is getting
Microsoft to fix the problem that millions of Windows machines are under
the surreptitious control of bad actors.
On 20/11/2023 08:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2023-11-20, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
is not just a GG/Usenet matter. They need to make it more
time-consuming to open a new google account, involve more user
interaction,
Just not so demanding of time and interaction that it becomes easier to
set up Linux and run tin
Just not that it's easier to install Linux and run tin.
Why would anyone choose to run tin, unless they have been using it for the last three decades?
There are many free Usenet clients available, for Windows and Linux (and I guess also for Macs).
They are not particularly difficult to install or use, and no one needs to use an OS that they don't
want to use.
Pretty much any human who wants to use GG to access Usenet will already have a google account -
extra hurdles on making new google accounts won't affect them. For the tiny proportion that need to
make a new account, it should not be an issue if they have an extra step or two of captchas, SMS
codes, or whatever.
and put limits on the numbers of new accounts from the same
IP within a short time-frame.
"Same IP" only works against the pure amateurs who do not harness large
numbers of different IP addresses by using botnets or their own IP
blocks.
The spammers are amateurs. Any professional spammer group would know perfectly well that flooding
technical Usenet groups with Thai casino adverts is useless.
Before we blame everything on Google, the first step is getting
Microsoft to fix the problem that millions of Windows machines are under
the surreptitious control of bad actors.
I don't blame /everything/ on Google - but this one is most certainly their fault.
On 20/11/2023 12:33, David Brown wrote:
On 20/11/2023 08:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2023-11-20, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
is not just a GG/Usenet matter. They need to make it more
time-consuming to open a new google account, involve more user
interaction,
Just not so demanding of time and interaction that it becomes easier to
set up Linux and run tin
Just not that it's easier to install Linux and run tin.
Why would anyone choose to run tin, unless they have been using it for
the last three decades? There are many free Usenet clients available,
for Windows and Linux (and I guess also for Macs). They are not
particularly difficult to install or use, and no one needs to use an
OS that they don't want to use.
Pretty much any human who wants to use GG to access Usenet will
already have a google account - extra hurdles on making new google
accounts won't affect them. For the tiny proportion that need to make
a new account, it should not be an issue if they have an extra step or
two of captchas, SMS codes, or whatever.
and put limits on the numbers of new accounts from the same
IP within a short time-frame.
"Same IP" only works against the pure amateurs who do not harness large
numbers of different IP addresses by using botnets or their own IP
blocks.
The spammers are amateurs. Any professional spammer group would know
perfectly well that flooding technical Usenet groups with Thai casino
adverts is useless.
So what do you believe is "the point" of all the current spam?
That's a serious question - if you believe it is hoping that someone
reads a particular spam post and sees some online betting web site link
and thinks "aha, I was just thinking about doing some online gambling,
and as luck has it I've just come across a link. I might as well use
that one!" then indeed the spammers would be worse than amateurs -
they'd be idiots, and nobody would pay them for that! :)
So I'll suggest another reason:Â the intent of the spam is to pervert
the Google search weighting algorithms in an attempt to move particular
sites up the rankings, aiming at an ideal outcome of appearing on the
first page of a search.
 Individuals have been claiming to be able to do
this for almost as long as search engines like Google have become
financially important to buisnesses, and it seems 100% plausible to me
that it can be done
- of course you would need to have a good
understanding of how Google rankings work [which I don't!], but then you exploit that knowledge to "trick" Google into thinking particular sites
are more popular than they really are. Probably it would involve
injecting document for Google to scan (Usenet articles?) containing lots
of mentions of the keywords of interest in association with links of interest. It wouldn't be particularly relevant what human readers made
of those documents.
So an indicator of this going on might be articles consisting primarily
of long lists of links to promoted websites. Like you say, who is going
to actually read and absorb such a "silly" list of links? Perhaps
Google ranking algorithms? (I don't know, but that's all I can think of
- anyhow, such lists of links is exactly what 99% of the spam consists
of...)
Seems we're on the same page regarding Google needing to fix their
account creation process so it is more expensive in human manpower.
While there is no cost using some automated process, banning users for spamming achieves very little. I can see that Google fixing this isn't going to be instant, but there's also the route of simply identifying
spam on prima facae grounds and blocking it at entry. Google don't seem
to like that approach for some reason. Perhaps they see it as just escalating the spam war requiring constant investment to keep up with spammers, and Google want a zero on-going effort (on their part) solution.
The spammers are amateurs. Any professional spammer group would know perfectly well that flooding technical Usenet groups with Thai casino
adverts is useless.
The good news: The spam problem (both the so-called "Thai spam" and the "mushroom spam") is gone from clc and clc++, because Google has (for
reasons of its own) banned both groups. What's funny about this is that normally people on these groups would be p*ssed off at Google for banning them, but in this instance, it is a happy coincidence that it stops the
spam. So, we're good with it.
The bad news is that it is still alive and well in many of the other
groups. Right now, comp.editors is getting slammed - about 1 spam per minute, 24/7.
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all newsgroups, not just these 2?
The good news: The spam problem (both the so-called "Thai spam" and the "mushroom spam") is gone from clc and clc++, because Google has (for
reasons of its own) banned both groups. What's funny about this is that normally people on these groups would be p*ssed off at Google for banning them, but in this instance, it is a happy coincidence that it stops the
spam. So, we're good with it.
The bad news is that it is still alive and well in many of the other
groups. Right now, comp.editors is getting slammed - about 1 spam per minute, 24/7.
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all newsgroups, not just these 2?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 53:53:05 |
| Calls: | 6,690 |
| Files: | 12,225 |
| Messages: | 5,344,915 |