They are covering their incompetence!
We got to provide solutions our ourselves.
There is the narkive which, if it actually worked, would fit the bill.
Am 14.12.2023 um 22:56:56 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
We got to provide solutions our ourselves.
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?
Maybe we should keep the USENET as hidden from the world as possible.
Am 14.12.2023 um 18:55:14 Uhr schrieb Wally J:
Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new >>Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of >>historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
The bad news is that this search engine "may" stop working soon.
Didn't it stop working long time ago?
. . .
Thus spake doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor)
Why would you think Google cares?
Hence incompetence.
Google's Razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be
adequately explained by malice.
Am 15.12.2023 um 18:36:27 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
What is there to save the way Google Groups presented Usenet?
Web Gateways exist and the content can be indexed by normal search
engines.
Marco Moock wrote:
Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?
URL?
What is there to save the way Google Groups presented Usenet?
Hence incompetence.
schrieb Wally J:
the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?,
some?) newsgroups is the narkive
Sadly, there is no list of all groups hosted there.
schrieb Andy Burns:
Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.
Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>
I agree with OP, my service kinda sucks.Oh man. I am truly sorry for having said that.
To me, the priority, as I see it, for the most good, is the search engine.
Hey! I'm the guy behind Narkive.
I removed the search functionality because it was broken more often
than not and would lead to a bad user experience. I did almost finish a search redesign based around a cluster of servers running Vespa (which
means ANN vector search + BM25, and would have been pretty much state of
the art)
I could re-enable signups, posting
My server's private (for the time being). Article's aren't expired,
(except for ephemeral admin information). So my spool goes back
decades. And it turns out something along the lines of:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don wrote:
My server's private (for the time being). Article's aren't expired, >>>(except for ephemeral admin information). So my spool goes back
decades. And it turns out something along the lines of:
How many decades? Does it predate the Renaming? If it goes back before
1990, would it be possible for me to get access to parts of it?
AFAIK, articles only date back to approximately the year 2000. Other
people's spool archives available at <https://archive.org/details/usenet>,
as well as commercial content, was haphazardly imported many years
ago.
Since then, archive.org added a lot of new backups of old content.
It makes me want to re-build from scratch. Unfortunately, it takes months
to process tens/hundreds of millions of text files, one group at a time.
The hardest importation task is to sort things by Date: to ensure
the Xref: article number increases monotonically with Date:
Long story short, you probably won't get much mileage out of my spool
"as is." Any re-built spool is a different story.
Danke,
Accessing the Usenet service:
Configure your news client to connect to news.blueworldhosting.com. >(usenet.blueworldhosting.com is used for peering and this website only) >Connections are available on port 119 and 563. Port 119 is unencrypted and 563 >is encrypted with TLS. We recommend using TLS.
Usenet had spam before it had a web presence. Spam will appear anywhere
that has an audience and lacks sufficient controls to prevent it.
Server Details, even in, ohh what was that windowsy thing... Trumpet or Trombone...
Am 18.12.2023 um 12:19:45 Uhr schrieb noel:
IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
routes magically start working when you get your users to disable
IPv6.
The something in the network is broken.
On 12/18/23 09:55, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 18.12.2023 um 12:19:45 Uhr schrieb noel:
IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty
of routes magically start working when you get your users to
disable IPv6.
The something in the network is broken.
I figure that people who say IPv6 is unstable either sell VPSes or
CGNAT gateways as a job
or they're just frustrated with their ISP for having a broken network.
Am 18.12.2023 um 11:11:53 Uhr schrieb immibis:
Then those people are incompetent. There are many VPS providers out
there that properly support IPv6.
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
Missing the point. New IPv4 residential networks require CGNAT gateways,
and their customers need VPSes to get IP addresses of their own.
Sadly, getting multiple globally routed IPv4 addresses has been
easier than getting native IPv6 support.
That's why I chose an ISP that provides me both.
On 12/18/23 11:20, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 18.12.2023 um 11:11:53 Uhr schrieb immibis:
Then those people are incompetent. There are many VPS providers out
there that properly support IPv6.
Missing the point. New IPv4 residential networks require CGNAT gateways,
and their customers need VPSes to get IP addresses of their own.
Not unless you have deep pockets and can buy up subnets - but I refuse
to entertain that idea if they inflate the price more than 15% above
what RIR will charge (some RIRs are exhausted - but not all)
Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that
they have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of
"stealth", it would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and
still have an operational network.
In article <uma9j9$2nk73$5@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted >>>>> them to.
I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
longer offered.
["service" referring to googlegroups]
Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that >>> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit >>> but derive any income whatsoever.
To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
They needed to maintain good administration!!
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
On Thursday 14 December 2023 at 22:55:17 UTC, Wally J wrote:they plan to restore groups they've already removed due to SPAM or content issues which they should have reasonably exercised moderator control on.
Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content >> from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data >> will still be supported as it is done today.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
Is it something we said?
*Please complain to Google about their spamming of Usenet*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/hO4JNke1bNc>
--
Usenet is a team of intelligent old men working together for common good.
This was not unexpected. Google doesn't want to spend time on something that is a potential liability issue going forward. However there is no indication in the announcement , as to what 'cleaning' of the existing archive will be undertaken, or is
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 02:39:49 -0800 (PST), Alex Farlie wrote:
On Thursday 14 December 2023 at 22:55:17 UTC, Wally J wrote:something that is a potential liability issue going forward. However
Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:This was not unexpected. Google doesn't want to spend time on
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content >>> from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data >>> will still be supported as it is done today.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
Is it something we said?
*Please complain to Google about their spamming of Usenet*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/hO4JNke1bNc>
--
Usenet is a team of intelligent old men working together for common good. >>
there is no indication in the announcement , as to what 'cleaning' of
the existing archive will be undertaken, or is they plan to restore
groups they've already removed due to SPAM or content issues which they >should have reasonably exercised moderator control on.
I would be surprised if they did any cleaning at all of what already
exists.
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 14:41:41 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >Doctor) wrote:
In article <e8nzglsm6nfi$.1dkxgwke1o7sa$.dlg@40tude.net>,historical data
Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 02:39:49 -0800 (PST), Alex Farlie wrote:
On Thursday 14 December 2023 at 22:55:17 UTC, Wally J wrote:
Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new >>>>> Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new >content
from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
snipwill still be supported as it is done today.
This was not unexpected. Google doesn't want to spend time on >>>something that is a potential liability issue going forward. However >>>there is no indication in the announcement , as to what 'cleaning' ofthe existing archive will be undertaken, or is they plan to restore >>>groups they've already removed due to SPAM or content issues which they >>>should have reasonably exercised moderator control on.
I would be surprised if they did any cleaning at all of what already >>>exists.
Consider that junk they on non-GG newsservers ...
can't imagine google making that archive public domain, but filtering
out all articles with "googlegroups.com" in path/message id/reference
headers into a separate archive would be of interest to statisticians
In article <e8nzglsm6nfi$.1dkxgwke1o7sa$.dlg@40tude.net>,snip
Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 02:39:49 -0800 (PST), Alex Farlie wrote:
On Thursday 14 December 2023 at 22:55:17 UTC, Wally J wrote:
Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content
from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data
will still be supported as it is done today.
This was not unexpected. Google doesn't want to spend time onsomething that is a potential liability issue going forward. However
there is no indication in the announcement , as to what 'cleaning' of
the existing archive will be undertaken, or is they plan to restore
groups they've already removed due to SPAM or content issues which they >>should have reasonably exercised moderator control on.
I would be surprised if they did any cleaning at all of what already >>exists.
Consider that junk they on non-GG newsservers ...
In article <85ad8f9541807f83aeeab62da0789024@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:snip
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 14:41:41 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >>Doctor) wrote:
In article <e8nzglsm6nfi$.1dkxgwke1o7sa$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> wrote:
I would be surprised if they did any cleaning at all of what already >>>>exists.
Consider that junk they on non-GG newsservers ...
can't imagine google making that archive public domain, but filtering
out all articles with "googlegroups.com" in path/message id/reference >>headers into a separate archive would be of interest to statisticians
And the junk they punished non-GG server with!
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 15:55:10 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >Doctor) wrote:
In article <85ad8f9541807f83aeeab62da0789024@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote: >>>On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 14:41:41 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >>>Doctor) wrote:snip
In article <e8nzglsm6nfi$.1dkxgwke1o7sa$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> wrote:
I would be surprised if they did any cleaning at all of what already >>>>>exists.
Consider that junk they on non-GG newsservers ...
can't imagine google making that archive public domain, but filtering
out all articles with "googlegroups.com" in path/message id/reference >>>headers into a separate archive would be of interest to statisticians
And the junk they punished non-GG server with!
an unabridged g2n archive might also be useful to researchers for locating >some relatively legitimate articles/replies/threads amid the ocean of spam
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 388 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 133:53:29 |
| Calls: | 8,209 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,122 |
| Messages: | 5,871,359 |
