Hopefully peering with googlegroups will be a thing of the past after
the end of today but I'm still curious about this. Newsservers
generally have a web page with information on what you should do to set
up peering with them. Does googlegroups have (or used to have) anything similar or was all peering done with "behind closed doors" arrangements ?
On 2/22/24 08:17, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
Hopefully peering with googlegroups will be a thing of the past after
the end of today but I'm still curious about this. Newsservers
generally have a web page with information on what you should do to set
up peering with them. Does googlegroups have (or used to have) anything
similar or was all peering done with "behind closed doors" arrangements ?
Oh yea, I forgot that Google USENET support is shutting down today. Nice :) >--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
Hopefully peering with googlegroups will be a thing of the past after
the end of today but I'm still curious about this. Newsservers
generally have a web page with information on what you should do to set
up peering with them. Does googlegroups have (or used to have) anything >similar or was all peering done with "behind closed doors" arrangements ?
--
vlaho.ninja/menu
In article <5jgQEd261SSBbv6CF@bongo-ra.co>,
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
Hopefully peering with googlegroups will be a thing of the past after
the end of today but I'm still curious about this. Newsservers
generally have a web page with information on what you should do to set
up peering with them. Does googlegroups have (or used to have) anything >>similar or was all peering done with "behind closed doors" arrangements ? >>--
vlaho.ninja/menu
It died at 10 a.m. PST
From: Jesse Rehmer <jesse.rehmer@blueworldhosting.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Subject: Re: ding dong the wicked witch . . . ?
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:42:02 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com) >Message-ID: <ur8f3a$72f$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <ae03e6ecaf3240e815b6273a9039449f@dizum.com>
The last one my server saw was: ><ddf29c87-cdab-4b64-95b4-17c2a93489aen@googlegroups.com>
Hopefully peering with googlegroups will be a thing of the past
after the end of today but I'm still curious about this. Newsservers generally have a web page with information on what you should do to
set up peering with them. Does googlegroups have (or used to have)
anything similar or was all peering done with "behind closed doors" arrangements ?
I was asking about the political (social may be a better term)
rather than the technical. I certainly wasn't thinking that any
special protocols were in place to do peering with googlegroups.
So for example did someone from within Google contact at some point
in time certain newsserver administrators to indicate that they wanted
to set up peering and then they took it from there?
On 2/23/24 07:32, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
I was asking about the political (social may be a better term)Ah.
rather than the technical. I certainly wasn't thinking that any
special protocols were in place to do peering with googlegroups.
So for example did someone from within Google contact at some point
in time certain newsserver administrators to indicate that they wanted
to set up peering and then they took it from there?
I don't know who initiated the peering. It was a very long time ago in >computer time and even longer ago in Google time.
It may have been Google reaching out to other peers. Or it may have
been other peers reaching out to Google. I suspect it was some of both.
My opinion is that Google largely let their Usenet interaction / >infrastructure bit-rot on the vine. Any attempt I had with Google
employees working on it left me quite disappointed.
I don't know who initiated the peering. It was a very long time
ago in computer time and even longer ago in Google time.
My opinion is that Google largely let their Usenet interaction / >infrastructure bit-rot on the vine.
Google inherited the Dejanews peerings.
What I find striking about the whole affair is how the peers were willing
to continue the peering despite all the spam.
Who's "us" ?
On 2/23/24 15:29, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
What I find striking about the whole affair is how the peers were
willing to continue the peering despite all the spam. When I read
peering policies it is very common that they specify that the
prospective peers must operate antispam measures. Google clearly did
not operate any but the peering continued. I wonder if Google paid
money to some/all their peers.
Google is one of those entities that almost everybody is afraid of
going up against. This means that most people were unwilling to
depeer (not that they need to any more) or filter email from Google,
because Google!
Google really enjoyed their small startup position competing with
Yahoo and Microsoft's offering at the time. Lots of people wanted to
favor Google if for nothing other than David vs Goliath support for
the little guy. Now Google is Goliath and many people are scared to
go against Google.
What I find striking about the whole affair is how the peers
were willing to continue the peering despite all the spam. When I
read peering policies it is very common that they specify that the prospective peers must operate antispam measures. Google clearly did
not operate any but the peering continued. I wonder if Google paid
money to some/all their peers.
On 2/23/24 15:29, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
What I find striking about the whole affair is how the peers
were willing to continue the peering despite all the spam. When I
read peering policies it is very common that they specify that the >>prospective peers must operate antispam measures. Google clearly did
not operate any but the peering continued. I wonder if Google paid
money to some/all their peers.
Google is one of those entities that almost everybody is afraid of going
up against. This means that most people were unwilling to depeer (not
that they need to any more) or filter email from Google, because Google!
Google really enjoyed their small startup position competing with Yahoo
and Microsoft's offering at the time. Lots of people wanted to favor
Google if for nothing other than David vs Goliath support for the little
guy. Now Google is Goliath and many people are scared to go against Google.
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
On 2/23/24 15:29, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
What I find striking about the whole affair is how the peers
were willing to continue the peering despite all the spam. When I
read peering policies it is very common that they specify that the >>>prospective peers must operate antispam measures. Google clearly did
not operate any but the peering continued. I wonder if Google paid
money to some/all their peers.
Google is one of those entities that almost everybody is afraid of going
up against. This means that most people were unwilling to depeer (not
that they need to any more) or filter email from Google, because Google!
How does that work? You are operating SpamAssasin as an email abuse >countermeasure and you tell it NOT to filter any email originating from
Gmail because you are afraid of reprisals from Google?
The recent massive Usenet abuse from Google Groups finally made the
public aware of something Google had been failing to do for years, run a >Usenet site like a good actor. It caused Google embarassment in front of
a public that for the most part of ignorant of the existence of Usenet.
I must have missed the news that the Google assasination squad took out
any of the people that we know.
Google really enjoyed their small startup position competing with Yahoo
and Microsoft's offering at the time. Lots of people wanted to favor >>Google if for nothing other than David vs Goliath support for the little >>guy. Now Google is Goliath and many people are scared to go against Google.
I don't recall what search Microsoft offered. Yahoo was fantastic
because they were offering a directory service edited by human beings.
In olden days before the Web, we had the Gopher protocol which was... a
high quality directory service edited by human beings. ftp sites were
forced to make an attempt at logical organization because finding the
file you needed to download was difficult enough. The Web didn't
require a directory to function so too many Web sites were set up without >logical structure. That's where search engines come in, but indexing
doesn't impose structure.
Google search doesn't exactly make it easy to find what you need. I'd
rather start with a directory but Google made those go away. Google's >advertising model appears to be the more bad hits we present, the more
ads we serve. It's a negative incentive.
How does that work? You are operating SpamAssasin as an email abuse countermeasure and you tell it NOT to filter any email originating
from Gmail because you are afraid of reprisals from Google?
The recent massive Usenet abuse from Google Groups finally made the
public aware of something Google had been failing to do for years,
run a Usenet site like a good actor. It caused Google embarassment in
front of a public that for the most part of ignorant of the existence
of Usenet.
I must have missed the news that the Google assasination squad took
out any of the people that we know.
I don't recall what search Microsoft offered. Yahoo was fantastic
because they were offering a directory service edited by human beings.
In olden days before the Web, we had the Gopher protocol which
was... a high quality directory service edited by human beings. ftp
sites were forced to make an attempt at logical organization because
finding the file you needed to download was difficult enough. The Web
didn't require a directory to function so too many Web sites were set
up without logical structure. That's where search engines come in,
but indexing doesn't impose structure.
Google search doesn't exactly make it easy to find what you need. I'd
rather start with a directory but Google made those go away. Google's advertising model appears to be the more bad hits we present, the
more ads we serve. It's a negative incentive.
Gmail was also so far in advance of all other free webmail when it came
out, it wasn't even a competition. The interface was clean and fast,
but most importantly you gotso much storage, at a time when most free accounts had a few pitiful megabytes.
been using duckduckgo exclusively since 2012 (default search for
tor browser);
altavista ... worked great while it lasted;
no one can actually "go against" the system, but avoiding them is
the law of the jungle, get too close and that's all she wrote
On 2/25/24 12:28, D wrote:
been using duckduckgo exclusively since 2012 (default search for
tor browser);
I think that DDG has also gone down hill. They are starting to exhibit
the same problems I had with Google.
I have this funny thing, when I search for something I expect the words
that are in my search to be in the page that the results link to. Or at >least the cached copy as of when the page was crawled.
I would rather get a "we didn't find any pages with all the search
terms" than bull shit that doesn't contain my search terms or so far
from them that it's not even remotely funny.
altavista ... worked great while it lasted;
I've heard good things about AltaVista. I don't remember using them. I
do remember using WebCrawler and was happy enough with them until Google
came along 20 years ago.
no one can actually "go against" the system, but avoiding them is
the law of the jungle, get too close and that's all she wrote
I've threatened to write my own search engine. I'd probably choose a
name with "grep" in it.
...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grep
grep is a command-line utility for searching plain-text data sets for lines >that match a regular expression. Its name comes from the ed command g/re/p >(global / regular expression search / and print), which has the same effect. >[3][4] grep was originally developed for the Unix operating system, but
later available for all Unix-like systems and some others such as OS-9.[5] [end quote]
On 2/25/24 10:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
How does that work? You are operating SpamAssasin as an email abuse
countermeasure and you tell it NOT to filter any email originating
from Gmail because you are afraid of reprisals from Google?
There are people that do that.
There are also a lot of people that will block list a small mom & pop
ISP that would never dare to block Google. What's really sad is that
most mom & pop ISPs actually care a LOT more than Google has ever cared;
both about quality of their service and making sure that their user base isn't doing something unfavorable.
The recent massive Usenet abuse from Google Groups finally made the
public aware of something Google had been failing to do for years,
run a Usenet site like a good actor. It caused Google embarassment in
front of a public that for the most part of ignorant of the existence
of Usenet.
I don't think that it did cause any embarrassment for Google. You can't
be embarrassed by something if you don't care about it.
I must have missed the news that the Google assasination squad took
out any of the people that we know.
?
I don't recall what search Microsoft offered. Yahoo was fantastic
because they were offering a directory service edited by human beings.
Yahoo started as a hand curated directory but switched away from that by
the early '00s.
In olden days before the Web, we had the Gopher protocol which
was... a high quality directory service edited by human beings. ftp
sites were forced to make an attempt at logical organization because
finding the file you needed to download was difficult enough. The Web
didn't require a directory to function so too many Web sites were set
up without logical structure. That's where search engines come in,
but indexing doesn't impose structure.
I'd argue that sites should still try to provide a logical layout.
Google search doesn't exactly make it easy to find what you need. I'd
rather start with a directory but Google made those go away. Google's
advertising model appears to be the more bad hits we present, the
more ads we serve. It's a negative incentive.
I cuss at Google less now that I avoid them when I can reasonably do so.
In article <urap66$dga$1@hope.eyrie.org>,
Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:
Google inherited the Dejanews peerings.
Now that I posted that, I realize my memory isn't so clear on this part either. Actually, and I may be wrong, I think that Google first bought another "news" startup -- and that's where the guy we met with came from
-- and then Deja soon after. Either way, they had existing peering.
(To state the obvious, we were NDA'd like crazy for that meeting. I'm probably breaking it now!)
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 18:52:21 +0000, Todd M. McComb wrote:
In article <urap66$dga$1@hope.eyrie.org>,
Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:
Google inherited the Dejanews peerings.
Now that I posted that, I realize my memory isn't so clear on this part
either. Actually, and I may be wrong, I think that Google first bought
another "news" startup -- and that's where the guy we met with came from
-- and then Deja soon after. Either way, they had existing peering.
(To state the obvious, we were NDA'd like crazy for that meeting. I'm
probably breaking it now!)
:)
Fascinating to read some of the history from those involved in it. Thanks
for sharing.
It's certainly changing times for Usenet and while spammers have not
totally gone from the scene (by any measure) it will be interesting to see
if this subsidence in spam actually aids interest / adoption in Usenet as
a space to chat and exchange ideas in good old plain text again :)
I remain hopeful, and it's nice to see others still active in Usenet doing the same :)
actually aids interest / adoption in Usenet as a space to chat and
exchange ideas in good old plain text again :)
Kerr Avon <avon@bbs.nz.invalid> wrote at 08:49 this Wednesday (GMT):
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 18:52:21 +0000, Todd M. McComb wrote:
In article <urap66$dga$1@hope.eyrie.org>,
Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:
Google inherited the Dejanews peerings.
Now that I posted that, I realize my memory isn't so clear on this part
either. Actually, and I may be wrong, I think that Google first bought
another "news" startup -- and that's where the guy we met with came from >>> -- and then Deja soon after. Either way, they had existing peering.
(To state the obvious, we were NDA'd like crazy for that meeting. I'm
probably breaking it now!)
:)
Fascinating to read some of the history from those involved in it. Thanks
for sharing.
It's certainly changing times for Usenet and while spammers have not
totally gone from the scene (by any measure) it will be interesting to see >> if this subsidence in spam actually aids interest / adoption in Usenet as
a space to chat and exchange ideas in good old plain text again :)
I remain hopeful, and it's nice to see others still active in Usenet doing >> the same :)
Cheers to that!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 335 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 147:59:47 |
| Calls: | 7,411 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,670 |
| Messages: | 5,613,095 |