No longer can you "search before you post" at this URL for this
newsgroup <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
"Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable."
<https://i.postimg.cc/RZkhn6bj/googlegroups.jpg>
The question to iron out in this thread would be what are the
alternative web-based no-account Usenet-only search engines for
general use which are updated and which provide a unique pointer to
any given message post?
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:26:14 +0530
Indira <indira@ghandi.net> wrote:
No longer can you "search before you post" at this URL for this
newsgroup <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
"Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable."
<https://i.postimg.cc/RZkhn6bj/googlegroups.jpg>
The question to iron out in this thread would be what are the
alternative web-based no-account Usenet-only search engines for
general use which are updated and which provide a unique pointer to
any given message post?
And the dozen or so remaining news admins breathe a sigh of relief.
To answer your question, if I had oodles of disk space to create such a service, then I would lol. I can't imagine how much you would need to
index it all, but since each article has a unique article-id anyway (or should) have, it should be easy to generate a unique pointer to a given message.
The question to iron out in this thread would be what are the alternative web-based no-account Usenet-only search engines for general use which
are updated and which provide a unique pointer to any given message post?
In news.admin.peering Indira <indira@ghandi.net> wrote:
The question to iron out in this thread would be what are the alternative
web-based no-account Usenet-only search engines for general use which
are updated and which provide a unique pointer to any given message post?
Polish part of the Usenet has been archived (not by me) at:
https://usenet.nereid.pl/
It's not searchable and not being updated in the real time, but it's
easily downloadable.
If my server (news.chmurka.net) knows an article, you can display it by >entering a Message-ID here:
http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php
For example:
http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php?mid=ur8tvu$2kvca$1@paganini.bofh.team
If my server (news.chmurka.net) knows an article, you can display it by >>entering a Message-ID here:
http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php
An other server to display it by Message-Id here: http://usenet.ovh/index.php?article=ual
I think the challenge really would be in tracking down all the old
archives. Disk space requirements don't seem too absurd, but don't know
what sort of resources would be required to build a full text search
index of it all.
llp wrote:
If my server (news.chmurka.net) knows an article, you can display it by
entering a Message-ID here:
http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php
An other server to display it by Message-Id here:
http://usenet.ovh/index.php?article=ual
While the Message-ID needs to be known, if it's recent, and if the user is
a Usenet cognoscenti, then they can make use of a message-id engine.
Any others other than these three general purpose message-id lookups? http://al.howardknight.net/
http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php
http://usenet.ovh/index.php?article=ual
A valuable search engine that allows you to find out
if a message is nocemized and to consult the nocem *and* the message.
Is it an A2A (admin to admin) way of removing suspected spams?
Indira <indira@ghandi.net> wrote:
Is it an A2A (admin to admin) way of removing suspected spams?
The basic story is that back in the eighties, there was a mechanism called
a "cancel" which would allow you (or just about anyone else) to send a control
message to every site on the net and have them delete the local copy of your message. This mechanism got abused, and consequently most sites today do
not accept cancels.
Therefore, when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google,
I think some time around 1995, some admins came up with the idea of the
NoCem which is a cancel message that employs PGP signatures so you can
tell where they come from and admins can make the decision about whether
to accept them or not based upon the reputation of the sender. This is
an advance over conventional cancels which could be forged so you could
not necessarily know who the sender was.
If it were not for the nocem process, Usenet would have become unusable
with spam long ago.
You don't have to be an admin to issue nocems, you just have to have admins trust you. You can read the messages yourself and use them for a personal spam filter if you want, but the initial idea was for the news servers to
use them automatically. This is how they are primarily used.
--scott
when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google,
I think some time around 1995
You don't have to be an admin to issue nocems, you just have to have admins trust you.
On 24 Feb 2024 22:02:26 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:
when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google, I think some
time around 1995
While the moment Google Groups went online there was "some" spam, didn't
the spam problem really multiply in the thousands only recently?
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired by
Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.
Gelato <gelato@.is.invalid> writes:Nod agreement.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:33:23 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't
acquired by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet
didn't have anything to do with Google.
What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a
login & password were apparently able to control spammers, so why
couldn't Google?
Spam filtering requires ongoing effort since it's adversarial
(spammers adapt), and Google stopped caring about Google Groups years
ago. I suspect the service has been mostly running on autopilot for a
while.
It will be interesting to see how well other servers continue to hold
up against spam now that all the spammers will be looking for new
injection points.
Nick Cine <nickcine@is.invalid> writes:
On 24 Feb 2024 22:02:26 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:
when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google, I think
some time around 1995
While the moment Google Groups went online there was "some" spam,
didn't the spam problem really multiply in the thousands only
recently?
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't
acquired by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet
didn't have anything to do with Google.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:33:23 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't
acquired by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet
didn't have anything to do with Google.
What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a login
& password were apparently able to control spammers, so why couldn't
Google?
On 24 Feb 2024, Russ Allbery <eagle@eyrie.org> posted some news:87cysl5fjg.fsf@hope.eyrie.org:
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired
by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.
The original ASIAN spam problems on Usenet.
Nick Cine <nickcine@is.invalid> writes:
On 24 Feb 2024 22:02:26 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:
when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google, I think some
time around 1995
While the moment Google Groups went online there was "some" spam, didn't
the spam problem really multiply in the thousands only recently?
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at all. >Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired by
Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.
when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google,
I think some time around 1995
While the moment Google Groups went online there was "some" spam, didn't
the spam problem really multiply in the thousands only recently?
Like only a few months ago?
Almost as if either Google suddenly turned some kind of filter off, or
maybe the spammers suddenly started selling super-efficient ways around the >normal Google spam filters?
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:33:23 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at all.
Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired by
Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.
What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a login & >password were apparently able to control spammers, so why couldn't Google?
In article <urelti$tv6$1@rasp.pasdenom.info>,
Gelato <gelato@.is.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:33:23 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at all. >>> Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired by
Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.
What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a login & >>password were apparently able to control spammers, so why couldn't Google?
Because Google didn't have actual admins as far as I could tell. I know >hundreds of people who have worked for Google and always asked them if they >had ever met anyone working for Google Groups and nobody had. The >groups-abuse@google.com address seemed to be unmanned. I think the system >was just running perhaps with some occasional upkeep of the software but >without any actual administration. And why they didn't change that is
likely because there wasn't any money in it.
Oh man, you've really cleared things up by specifying the languages used
and (theoretically) nationalities of the spammers involved. This
definitely casts the whole situation in a brand new light, now that we
have all that PC obfuscation out of the way.
On 24 Feb 2024, Russ Allbery <eagle@eyrie.org> posted some news:87cysl5fjg.fsf@hope.eyrie.org:
Nick Cine <nickcine@is.invalid> writes:
On 24 Feb 2024 22:02:26 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:
when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google, I think
some time around 1995
While the moment Google Groups went online there was "some" spam,
didn't the spam problem really multiply in the thousands only
recently?
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't
acquired by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet
didn't have anything to do with Google.
The original ASIAN spam problems on Usenet.
The CURRENT SOUTHEAST ASIAN spam problems in google groups / Usenet.
No point in being PC about it.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
You don't have to be an admin to issue nocems, you just have to have admins >> trust you.
What _software_ is used to send that "nocem cancel request" to all the
server admins? Is it a simple email? Or a special usenet post. Or what?
In article <ured45$38ql5$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Indira <indira@ghandi.net> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
You don't have to be an admin to issue nocems, you just have to have admins >>> trust you.
What _software_ is used to send that "nocem cancel request" to all the >>server admins? Is it a simple email? Or a special usenet post. Or what?
Just like with the creation of a new group or with a conventional cancel,
a message is posted to the "control" newsgroup, with the issuance of a
nocem a message is posted to the "nocem.misc" newsgroup. You can join
these newsgroups and watch sausage being made if you are interested in
doing so.
--scott
In article <urelti$tv6$1@rasp.pasdenom.info>,
Gelato <gelato@.is.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:33:23 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at all. >>> Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired by
Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.
What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a login &
password were apparently able to control spammers, so why couldn't Google?
Because Google didn't have actual admins as far as I could tell. I know hundreds of people who have worked for Google and always asked them if they had ever met anyone working for Google Groups and nobody had. The groups-abuse@google.com address seemed to be unmanned.
was just running perhaps with some occasional upkeep of the software but without any actual administration.
likely because there wasn't any money in it.
--scott
all the spammers will be looking for new injection
points.
Yes, in the last six months, a group of one or two users increased the
spam volume more than 10,000 times.
On 25/02/2024 06:34, Russ Allbery wrote:
all the spammers will be looking for new injection
points.
I doubt it. They will move to other forum based support sites. They have
no interest in newsgroups operated by other hobbyists and enthusiasts.
In fact I doubt career spammers knew about newsgroup
This is Google's SRE in action. You automate away any and all human involvement - because the enigneer's time is better spent elsewhere.
all the spammers will be looking for new injection
points.
I doubt it. They will move to other forum based support sites. They have
no interest in newsgroups operated by other hobbyists and enthusiasts.
In fact I doubt career spammers knew about newsgroup
It may very well be management. Google management had a love hate relationship with system administrators, as in they love to hate system administrators. Google got rid of system administrators multiple times.
Each time they realized the folly of their action and hired systems administrators again. It's a pendulum that keeps swinging back and forth.
No longer can you "search before you post" at this URL for this newsgroup
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
"Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions.
Historical content remains viewable."
<https://i.postimg.cc/RZkhn6bj/googlegroups.jpg>
I'm hearing that non-binary Usenet volume is on the order of megabytes
per day, and some of that is spam you can delete without archiving.
That's on the order of gigabytes per year. I expect that one of my spare
hard drives could hold the entire archive since the beginning of time.
*Binary* Usenet volume might be more like a gigabytes per *minute*. I
looked at a couple providers' peering requirements; they want you to
acquire a 10Gbit or 100Gbit dedicated cross-connect in their data
center. Most providers just resell other providers with a cache layer in front, because they don't want to deal with the storage requirements. Internet-based peering is right out.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:26:14 +0530
Indira <indira@ghandi.net> wrote:
No longer can you "search before you post" at this URL for this
newsgroup <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
"Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions.
Historical content remains viewable."
<https://i.postimg.cc/RZkhn6bj/googlegroups.jpg>
The question to iron out in this thread would be what are the
alternative web-based no-account Usenet-only search engines for
general use which are updated and which provide a unique pointer to
any given message post?
And the dozen or so remaining news admins breathe a sigh of relief.
To answer your question, if I had oodles of disk space to create such a service, then I would lol. I can't imagine how much you would need to
index it all, but since each article has a unique article-id anyway (or should) have, it should be easy to generate a unique pointer to a given message.
On 2/25/24 11:01, Richard Harnden wrote:
This is Google's SRE in action. You automate away any and all human
involvement - because the enigneer's time is better spent elsewhere.
I don't know if it's the SRE or not.
It may very well be management. Google management had a love hate relationship with system administrators, as in they love to hate system administrators. Google got rid of system administrators multiple times.
Each time they realized the folly of their action and hired systems administrators again. It's a pendulum that keeps swinging back and forth.
*Binary* Usenet volume might be more like a gigabytes per *minute*. I
looked at a couple providers' peering requirements; they want you to
acquire a 10Gbit or 100Gbit dedicated cross-connect in their data
center. Most providers just resell other providers with a cache layer
in front, because they don't want to deal with the storage
requirements. Internet-based peering is right out.
I have a full-feed, and my bin-server moving 80/100GB daily, x2 in/out. > I'ts manageable for everything, but you need a good storage box to do
more than 1 week history (my storage box it's a 150TB, and I have only 3 month history live for all bin groups).
On 24 Feb 2024, Russ Allbery <eagle@eyrie.org> posted some news:878r3959y0.fsf@hope.eyrie.org:
Gelato <gelato@.is.invalid> writes:Nod agreement.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:33:23 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't
acquired by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet
didn't have anything to do with Google.
What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a
login & password were apparently able to control spammers, so why
couldn't Google?
Spam filtering requires ongoing effort since it's adversarial
(spammers adapt), and Google stopped caring about Google Groups years
ago. I suspect the service has been mostly running on autopilot for a
while.
It will be interesting to see how well other servers continue to hold
up against spam now that all the spammers will be looking for new
injection points.
Seems google could have easily dealt with the most offensive bunch.
2402:800:61ae:79a9:a880:d836:6245:38d9
2402:800:61ae:3567:ede0:c2a8:5dfd:7c8a
2402:800:61a7:4f07:7192:a97:d907:f1f
2402:800:61a7:4f07:4997:dc42:fc1f:17d7
Viettel Group
inet6num: 2402:800::/32
route6: 2402:800::/32
descr: VIETTEL-VN
origin: AS7552
mnt-by: MAINT-VN-VNNIC
Indira wrote on Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:26:14 +0530 :
No longer can you "search before you post" at this URL for this newsgroup
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
"Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions.
Historical content remains viewable."
<https://i.postimg.cc/RZkhn6bj/googlegroups.jpg>
Notice it doesn't say historical content will remain 'searchable.' https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Online-Troubleshooting-HOWTO/usenet.html
Let's hope there are archives out there of the past & future content. https://www.vice.com/en/article/pky7km/usenet-archive-utzoo-online
But all the tutorials have to be re-written to remove GG from them. https://www.harley.com/usenet/usenet-tutorial/finding-what-you-want-on-usenet.html
Notice it doesn't say historical content will remain 'searchable.'
https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Online-Troubleshooting-HOWTO/usenet.html
That does seem really worrying.
I never heard of that. When did that happen?
uages identify the customers of the spammer but not necessarily
the spammer himself. Since we have one spammer who is posting messages in
a wide variety of languages including English, Thai, Hindi, and Bhasa Indonesia, knowing the language does not tell you much about who is running the spam itself, only the people who have hired him.
W Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:00:11 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 napisal:
I never heard of that. When did that happen?
Grant used to work at Google so much of what he knows is insider
information. You're not an insider. Me neither. I'm just a somebody.
That's why we need Grant around.
And that's why we need the peering folks too.
They know more than we regular folk do.
I'm just happy the spam is gone.
But I'm sad the easy to use search engine is also gone with it.
But at least I can take solace in that the spammers themselves wasted their money for only three months (or so) of having free reign over all of us.
But I'm sad the easy to use search engine is also gone with it.
A couple (well more than a "couple") bad actors ruined it for everyone :(
W Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:45:07 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 napisal:
But I'm sad the easy to use search engine is also gone with it.
A couple (well more than a "couple") bad actors ruined it for everyone :(
I'm not so sure. Since most of the spam looked similar (to me, anyway, with my untrained eye, & even with my other eye adding binocular disparity).
It probably wasn't a zillion people who finally figured out that Google wasn't checking for spam so much as one clever company who expended the appreciable amount money to figure out how to repeatedly and endlessly
trick Google filters into thinking they weren't doing what they were.
I don't know how, since you needed a login/password account at Google to spam, but I'm sure Google didn't give up without a fight - which they lost.
Indira wrote:
<https://i.postimg.cc/RZkhn6bj/googlegroups.jpg>
Notice it doesn't say historical content will remain 'searchable.'
-------- Original Message --------
From: immibis <news@immibis.com>
Date: lun, feb 26 2024 02:47:14PM GMT+00:00
Subject: Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or
subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
I'm hearing that non-binary Usenet volume is on the order of megabytes
per day, and some of that is spam you can delete without archiving.
That's on the order of gigabytes per year. I expect that one of my
spare hard drives could hold the entire archive since the beginning of
time.
My text-only server moving 1,5/2GB daily. x2 in/out.
My history go back to '90, and I have 8TB of data saved. Now I'm working
to do a webinterface for it due to closing of GG.
*Binary* Usenet volume might be more like a gigabytes per *minute*. I
looked at a couple providers' peering requirements; they want you to
acquire a 10Gbit or 100Gbit dedicated cross-connect in their data
center. Most providers just resell other providers with a cache layer
in front, because they don't want to deal with the storage
requirements. Internet-based peering is right out.
I have a full-feed, and my bin-server moving 80/100GB daily, x2 in/out.
I'ts manageable for everything, but you need a good storage box to do
more than 1 week history (my storage box it's a 150TB, and I have only 3 month history live for all bin groups).
Andrew wrote:
Indira wrote:
 <https://i.postimg.cc/RZkhn6bj/googlegroups.jpg>
Notice it doesn't say historical content will remain 'searchable.'
It does, if you follow the learn more link ...
"You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content
posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."
["Followup-To:" header set to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.]
On 2024-02-26, Jan K. <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> wrote:
W Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:00:11 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 napisal:
I never heard of that. When did that happen?
Grant used to work at Google so much of what he knows is insider
information. You're not an insider. Me neither. I'm just a somebody.
Oh, cool!
That's why we need Grant around.
And that's why we need the peering folks too.
They know more than we regular folk do.
I'm just happy the spam is gone.
But I'm sad the easy to use search engine is also gone with it.
A couple (well more than a "couple") bad actors ruined it for everyone :(
-------- Original Message --------
From: immibis <news@immibis.com>
Date: lun, feb 26 2024 06:20:42PM GMT+00:00
Subject: Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or
subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable>>
Here, a Giganews representative says their full binary feed is 20
gigabits, sometimes 30:
https://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/comments/184iecj/usenet_peering/
That is approximately 200 terabytes per day.
It depends on what you bring as binary peering.
Currently I carry the binaries of the general hierarchies, almost all
the national or private hierarchies, and some alt.* binaries. And it is
the latter that has a lot of traffic, also because there are groups that
make no sense, and others with pirated stuff (films, TV series,
software, etc) and user backups, yes users keep their backups on usenet.
Now, you understand why I don't bring all alt.* for the bins, but I do
filter a lot of stuff.
Here, a Giganews representative says their full binary feed is 20
gigabits, sometimes 30: https://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/comments/184iecj/usenet_peering/
That is approximately 200 terabytes per day.
Doesn't really make sense to call it a full feed if you are filtering
99.9% of it, does it?
Grant used to work at Google so much of what he knows is insider
information. You're not an insider. Me neither. I'm just a somebody.
Huh, I never heard of that. When did that happen?
-------- Original Message --------
From: immibis <news@immibis.com>
Date: lun, feb 26 2024 07:38:45PM GMT+00:00
Subject: Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or
subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable
Doesn't really make sense to call it a full feed if you are filtering
99.9% of it, does it?
I have write 99,9%? No. I'm filter only the 6/7% of the total (I
excluded the group's for the user backup, and some groups clearly useless/piracy).
But that's easy recover that group if you want it.
All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks before deleting their search archive.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 19:28:31 +0100, immibis wrote:
All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks
before deleting their search archive.
What I wish Google had done was keep the search archive active, which
means adding all the new posts to the search engine, but just disable posting.
On 29 Feb 2024, Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> posted some news:urrnhs$3mt6d$1@news.samoylyk.net:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 19:28:31 +0100, immibis wrote:
All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks
before deleting their search archive.
What I wish Google had done was keep the search archive active, which
means adding all the new posts to the search engine, but just disable
posting.
It's not too late to make that suggestion to them.
Nomen Nescio wrote:
On 29 Feb 2024, Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> posted some
news:urrnhs$3mt6d$1@news.samoylyk.net:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 19:28:31 +0100, immibis wrote:
All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks
before deleting their search archive.
What I wish Google had done was keep the search archive active, which
means adding all the new posts to the search engine, but just disable
posting.
It's not too late to make that suggestion to them.
It was the obvious way to go, but Google is pushing the narrative
"Usenet is dead so we're dropping it" rather than "we were the problem"
so I'd be surprised if that search-engine company still permitted
searching of new usenet content. They are throwing their toys out of
the pram.
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions.
Good riddance.
Andy Burns wrote:
"You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content
posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."
All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks before deleting their search archive.
What I wish Google had done was keep the search archive active, which means adding all the new posts to the search engine, but just disable posting.You can search for anything using google and 99.999% of the time you
On 01/03/2024 05:02, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
What I wish Google had done was keep the search archive active, which means adding all the new posts to the search engine, but just disable posting.You can search for anything using google and 99.999% of the time you
will find the answer. There is no need to search Google Groups that was ridden with 99% spam.
We now have Maori server to replace GoogleGroups sewer!!!!.
immibis wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
"You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content
posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."
All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks
before deleting their search archive.
Maybe ... I certainly don't expect they'll keep it around forever.
Andy Burns wrote:
immibis wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
"You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content
posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."
All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks
before deleting their search archive.
Maybe ... I certainly don't expect they'll keep it around forever.
Does their search archive include all the spam they helped inflict on us?
People, like you, with a bad attitude, are terrible netizens because they >never think to search for an answer before they post their questions, or >they'd wrongly recommend a bad answer having never ever searched first.
I'd agree with you only if Google had killed the posting ability, but if >Google kept the incoming feeds being fed into their updated search engine.
The loss of a good (well, OK) search engine, is something to be sad about.
Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote:
People, like you, with a bad attitude, are terrible netizens because
they never think to search for an answer before they post their
questions, or they'd wrongly recommend a bad answer having never ever >>searched first.
I'd agree with you only if Google had killed the posting ability, but
if Google kept the incoming feeds being fed into their updated search >>engine.
The loss of a good (well, OK) search engine, is something to be sad
about.
It was a useless and totally broken search engine. Nearly a decade
ago they broke the indices so that you couldn't search effectively by
text in the body or by author, making it nearly useless. You needed
to know the message-ID to find any message. Then they broke THAT and
you couldn't search by message-ID. Then it was totally useless.
After the indices were broken, the "advanced groups search page"
suddenly disappeared with no explanation, and that's about the point
where it became clear that they weren't ever going to fix anything.
--scott
I think most admins are using custom scripts to produce nocem messages.
I know that I am. It's just necessary to produce a properly formatted
and signed post, so not too complicated. I produce mine (i2pn2.org) with
a php script, then post it with a bash script.
There's a standarized and ready-made way to process incoming NoCeMs, but
I don't know of any ready-made way to generate them (which doesn't mean
that it doesn't exist).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:33:36 |
| Calls: | 6,911 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,379 |
| Messages: | 5,429,929 |
