Important notice for users of Google Groups

[Anton Shepelev]

Hello, all

The corporation of evil continues its crusade
against all good things, including free social me-
dia. It has started banning Usenet groups wholesale
due to the presence of SPAM and other illegal con-
tent. This, of course, is contrary to the very phi-
losophy of Usenet, where each individual decides
what posts and posters to ignore, by adding them to
the proverbial kill-file. Together with the bans,
the huge Usenet archive, owned by Google, is now in
danger. I thought that all I write on Usenet was
there to stay, but no longer. I will be archiving
interesting Usenet posts.

The sensible thing for Google to do would be to ban
individual spammers, based on the numerous (and ap-
paprently ignored) illegal-content reports submitted
though their web-interface or to their (appearently
unchecked) e-mail for complaints. It is a shame they
should employ their superb AI-systems for marketing
purposes instead of detecting SPAM, that it may be
removed like a tumor. But Google prefer to kill the
patient.

Users of Google groups are hereby encouraged to in-
stall a free newsreader and set it up to connect to
Usenet via a free Usenet provider. Free newsreaders
are many and easily findable for all OSes, including
iOS and Android, so I will only mention guidelines
for selecting a quality newsreader:

The Good Net-Keeping Seal of Approval:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160417105503/http://www.gnksa.org/gnksa.txt

Whereas free servers are somewhat fewer, and I will
mention two of them:

https://www.aioe.org/ (anonymous)
http://www.eternal-september.org/ (with authentification)

For help with installing and configuring a newsread-
er, post to news.software.readers .

See also:

Historical programming-language groups disappearing from Google:
https://lwn.net/Articles/827233/

Some Usenet groups suspended in Goggle Groups:
https://support.google.com/groups/thread/61391913?hl=en

[Anton Shepelev]

Together with the bans, the huge Usenet archive,
owned by Google, is now in danger.

A Usenet archive:

https://www.usenetarchives.com/

[Paul Carmichael]

Post by Anton Shepelev
Hello, all
The corporation of evil continues its crusade
against all good things, including free social me-
dia. It has started banning Usenet groups wholesale
due to the presence of SPAM and other illegal con-
tent. This, of course, is contrary to the very phi-
losophy of Usenet, where each individual decides
what posts and posters to ignore, by adding them to
the proverbial kill-file. Together with the bans,
the huge Usenet archive, owned by Google, is now in
danger. I thought that all I write on Usenet was
there to stay, but no longer. I will be archiving
interesting Usenet posts.

More usenet servers with monstrous amouts of storage would help.

Now that we all have fast fibre, we could all set one up. DNS might be a problem, so we
would all need to get fixed IPs. I actually already have one.

As soon as I get a round tuit, I'll look into it.

[Anton Shepelev]

Together with the bans, the huge Usenet archive,
owned by Google, is now in danger. I thought
that all I write on Usenet was there to stay,
but no longer. I will be archiving interesting
Usenet posts.

More usenet servers with monstrous amouts of stor-
age would help.

Not so monstrous, since text is both compact and
very compressible.

Now that we all have fast fibre, we could all set
one up.

I have always been behind the times on technology.
Everytime I joined an IRC channel in 2000s people
would welcome me with hues and cries about "dial-up
from Russia". I had to wait until it abaited to be
able to talk.

DNS might be a problem, so we would all need to
get fixed IPs. I actually already have one.

Do you propose that everybody should deploy and run
a server or a kind of distributed Usenet archive?

As soon as I get a round tuit, I'll look into it.

The thing without corners is sure making rounds. I
first heard of it from a developer of the DOSBox
Staging project about a year ago, and used the term
myself about a week ago in a C newsgroup, where a
user and contributor of MinGW seemed to like it.
Were you there without a mask?

[Paul Carmichael]

Post by Anton Shepelev

Together with the bans, the huge Usenet archive,
owned by Google, is now in danger. I thought
that all I write on Usenet was there to stay,
but no longer. I will be archiving interesting
Usenet posts.

More usenet servers with monstrous amouts of stor-
age would help.

Not so monstrous, since text is both compact and
very compressible.

Now that we all have fast fibre, we could all set
one up.

I have always been behind the times on technology.
Everytime I joined an IRC channel in 2000s people
would welcome me with hues and cries about "dial-up
from Russia". I had to wait until it abaited to be
able to talk.

DNS might be a problem, so we would all need to
get fixed IPs. I actually already have one.

Do you propose that everybody should deploy and run
a server or a kind of distributed Usenet archive?

As soon as I get a round tuit, I'll look into it.

The thing without corners is sure making rounds. I
first heard of it from a developer of the DOSBox
Staging project about a year ago, and used the term
myself about a week ago in a C newsgroup, where a
user and contributor of MinGW seemed to like it.
Were you there without a mask?

The round tuit has been around for as long as I can remember. Either from the UK
motorcycle group or maybe even from the shed (haven't been there for a long time).

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 13:12:17 GMT, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Anton Shepelev

Together with the bans, the huge Usenet archive,
owned by Google, is now in danger. I thought
that all I write on Usenet was there to stay,
but no longer. I will be archiving interesting
Usenet posts.

More usenet servers with monstrous amouts of stor-
age would help.

Not so monstrous, since text is both compact and
very compressible.

Now that we all have fast fibre, we could all set
one up.

I have always been behind the times on technology.
Everytime I joined an IRC channel in 2000s people
would welcome me with hues and cries about "dial-up
from Russia". I had to wait until it abaited to be
able to talk.

DNS might be a problem, so we would all need to
get fixed IPs. I actually already have one.

Do you propose that everybody should deploy and run
a server or a kind of distributed Usenet archive?

As soon as I get a round tuit, I'll look into it.

The thing without corners is sure making rounds. I
first heard of it from a developer of the DOSBox
Staging project about a year ago, and used the term
myself about a week ago in a C newsgroup, where a
user and contributor of MinGW seemed to like it.
Were you there without a mask?

The round tuit has been around for as long as I can remember. Either
from the UK motorcycle group or maybe even from the shed (haven't been
there for a long time).

Tourist gimmick in the 60's? yes:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/round_tuit
(1964 World's Fair)

[AnthonyL]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 14:12:17 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Anton Shepelev
=20

Together with the bans, the huge Usenet archive,
owned by Google, is now in danger. I thought
that all I write on Usenet was there to stay,
but no longer. I will be archiving interesting
Usenet posts.

More usenet servers with monstrous amouts of stor-
age would help.

=20
Not so monstrous, since text is both compact and
very compressible.
=20

Now that we all have fast fibre, we could all set
one up.

=20
I have always been behind the times on technology.
Everytime I joined an IRC channel in 2000s people
would welcome me with hues and cries about "dial-up
from Russia". I had to wait until it abaited to be
able to talk.
=20

DNS might be a problem, so we would all need to
get fixed IPs. I actually already have one.

=20
Do you propose that everybody should deploy and run
a server or a kind of distributed Usenet archive?
=20

As soon as I get a round tuit, I'll look into it.

=20
The thing without corners is sure making rounds. I
first heard of it from a developer of the DOSBox
Staging project about a year ago, and used the term
myself about a week ago in a C newsgroup, where a
user and contributor of MinGW seemed to like it.
Were you there without a mask?
=20

The round tuit has been around for as long as I can remember. Either from=
the UK=20
motorcycle group or maybe even from the shed (haven't been there for a lo=
ng time).

Wasn't it common to send apprentices to the stores to get some Round
Tuits and a jar of Elbow Grease? They often would have to ask for a
Long Stand as well.

[charles]

Post by AnthonyL
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 14:12:17 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael

Paul Carmichael to Anton Shepelev: =20

Together with the bans, the huge Usenet archive, owned by Google, is
now in danger. I thought that all I write on Usenet was there
to stay, but no longer. I will be archiving interesting Usenet
posts.

More usenet servers with monstrous amouts of stor- age would help.

=20 Not so monstrous, since text is both compact and very
compressible. =20

Now that we all have fast fibre, we could all set one up.

=20 I have always been behind the times on technology. Everytime I
joined an IRC channel in 2000s people would welcome me with hues and
cries about "dial-up from Russia". I had to wait until it abaited to
be able to talk. =20

DNS might be a problem, so we would all need to get fixed IPs. I
actually already have one.

=20 Do you propose that everybody should deploy and run a server or a
kind of distributed Usenet archive? =20

As soon as I get a round tuit, I'll look into it.

=20 The thing without corners is sure making rounds. I first heard
of it from a developer of the DOSBox Staging project about a year
ago, and used the term myself about a week ago in a C newsgroup,
where a user and contributor of MinGW seemed to like it. Were you
there without a mask? =20

The round tuit has been around for as long as I can remember. Either
from= the UK=20 motorcycle group or maybe even from the shed (haven't
been there for a lo= ng time).

Wasn't it common to send apprentices to the stores to get some Round
Tuits and a jar of Elbow Grease? They often would have to ask for a Long
Stand as well.

Striped paint

[Paul Carmichael]

Post by charles

Post by AnthonyL
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 14:12:17 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael

Paul Carmichael to Anton Shepelev: =20

Together with the bans, the huge Usenet archive, owned by Google, is
now in danger. I thought that all I write on Usenet was there
to stay, but no longer. I will be archiving interesting Usenet
posts.

More usenet servers with monstrous amouts of stor- age would help.

=20 Not so monstrous, since text is both compact and very
compressible. =20

Now that we all have fast fibre, we could all set one up.

=20 I have always been behind the times on technology. Everytime I
joined an IRC channel in 2000s people would welcome me with hues and
cries about "dial-up from Russia". I had to wait until it abaited to
be able to talk. =20

DNS might be a problem, so we would all need to get fixed IPs. I
actually already have one.

=20 Do you propose that everybody should deploy and run a server or a
kind of distributed Usenet archive? =20

As soon as I get a round tuit, I'll look into it.

=20 The thing without corners is sure making rounds. I first heard
of it from a developer of the DOSBox Staging project about a year
ago, and used the term myself about a week ago in a C newsgroup,
where a user and contributor of MinGW seemed to like it. Were you
there without a mask? =20

The round tuit has been around for as long as I can remember. Either
from= the UK=20 motorcycle group or maybe even from the shed (haven't
been there for a lo= ng time).

Wasn't it common to send apprentices to the stores to get some Round
Tuits and a jar of Elbow Grease? They often would have to ask for a Long
Stand as well.

Striped paint

Box of sparks etc.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by charles

Post by AnthonyL
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 14:12:17 +0100, Paul Carmichael

Post by Paul Carmichael

Paul Carmichael to Anton Shepelev: =20

Together with the bans, the huge Usenet archive, owned by Google, is
now in danger. I thought that all I write on Usenet was there
to stay, but no longer. I will be archiving interesting Usenet
posts.

More usenet servers with monstrous amouts of stor- age would help.

=20 Not so monstrous, since text is both compact and very
compressible. =20

Now that we all have fast fibre, we could all set one up.

=20 I have always been behind the times on technology. Everytime I
joined an IRC channel in 2000s people would welcome me with hues and
cries about "dial-up from Russia". I had to wait until it abaited to
be able to talk. =20

DNS might be a problem, so we would all need to get fixed IPs. I
actually already have one.

=20 Do you propose that everybody should deploy and run a server or a
kind of distributed Usenet archive? =20

As soon as I get a round tuit, I'll look into it.

=20 The thing without corners is sure making rounds. I first heard
of it from a developer of the DOSBox Staging project about a year
ago, and used the term myself about a week ago in a C newsgroup,
where a user and contributor of MinGW seemed to like it. Were you
there without a mask? =20

The round tuit has been around for as long as I can remember. Either
from= the UK=20 motorcycle group or maybe even from the shed (haven't
been there for a lo= ng time).

Wasn't it common to send apprentices to the stores to get some Round
Tuits and a jar of Elbow Grease? They often would have to ask for a Long
Stand as well.

Striped paint

Box of sparks etc.

Sky hooks.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 00:07:57 +0300, Anton Shepelev

Post by Anton Shepelev
The sensible thing for Google to do would be to ban
individual spammers, based on the numerous (and ap-
paprently ignored) illegal-content reports submitted
though their web-interface or to their (appearently
unchecked) e-mail for complaints. It is a shame they
should employ their superb AI-systems for marketing
purposes instead of detecting SPAM, that it may be
removed like a tumor. But Google prefer to kill the
patient.

Yes indeed.

For a while I tried using their spam reporting, but it only allows
reporting of individual messages.

Occasionally there would be a message saying "This thread is hidden
because you marked it as spam", but it was only hidden from me, the
one who reported it, not from the spammers, who kept adding to it.

They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as spam,
why not just delete the whole thread?

I suspect that the real reason they would not take action against the
individual spammers is that 99.999% of them were gmail users, and
therefore Google customers, and Google found their custom profitable.

As you say, their AI could easily have handled that -- reported 3
times for spam, ask for an explanation. If one is not forthcoming, and
reported another 3 times, suspend the account.

[Lewis]

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as spam,
why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete them
from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet, and since
google is a search index that indexes everything it can, they are
unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone might search
for.

Post by Steve Hayes
I suspect that the real reason they would not take action against the
individual spammers is that 99.999% of them were gmail users, and
therefore Google customers, and Google found their custom profitable.

I'm not sure why you think gmail is related. Google COULD ban spammers
from their googlegroups, but they have no motivation to do so.

Post by Steve Hayes
As you say, their AI could easily have handled that -- reported 3
times for spam, ask for an explanation. If one is not forthcoming, and
reported another 3 times, suspend the account.

How does that help Google?

[Steve Hayes]

fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as spam,
why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete them
from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet, and since
google is a search index that indexes everything it can, they are
unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone might search
for.

I don't.

If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them, and those 1000-message threads would not be spewed all
over Usenet. The first couple of messages might go out, but if there
are no replies the quantity of spam would be greatly reduced.

[Lewis]

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as spam,
why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete them
from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet, and since
google is a search index that indexes everything it can, they are
unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone might search
for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around the
world.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as spam,
why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete them
from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet, and since
google is a search index that indexes everything it can, they are
unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone might search
for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around the
world.

Of course who will what?

[Lewis]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as spam,
why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete them
from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet, and since
google is a search index that indexes everything it can, they are
unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone might search
for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around the
world.

Of course who will what?

I replied to the statement "If they delete the spam threads from their
own servers, people won't reply to them" It is literally the line
immediately above my statement.

How is this at all confusing?

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 08:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as spam,
why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete them
from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet, and since
google is a search index that indexes everything it can, they are
unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone might search
for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around the
world.

Of course who will what?

I replied to the statement "If they delete the spam threads from their
own servers, people won't reply to them" It is literally the line
immediately above my statement.
How is this at all confusing?

No they won't, because almost all the replies are in GoogleGroups and
are posted on Google's own servers, so if Google removes them, 99% of
the replies will disappear.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 08:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as
spam, why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete
them from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet,
and since google is a search index that indexes everything it can,
they are unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone
might search for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around
the world.

Of course who will what?

I replied to the statement "If they delete the spam threads from their
own servers, people won't reply to them" It is literally the line
immediately above my statement.
How is this at all confusing?

No they won't, because almost all the replies are in GoogleGroups and
are posted on Google's own servers, so if Google removes them, 99% of
the replies will disappear.

Of course not.
Those replies have been posted through Google to usenet,
so they are still present on all other usenet servers,
until expired there.
Some of the commercial usenet services have an infinite expiry,
so everything is still there, somewhere,
(but you may have to pay for it)

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 08:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as
spam, why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete
them from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet,
and since google is a search index that indexes everything it can,
they are unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone
might search for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around
the world.

Of course who will what?

I replied to the statement "If they delete the spam threads from their
own servers, people won't reply to them" It is literally the line
immediately above my statement.
How is this at all confusing?

No they won't, because almost all the replies are in GoogleGroups and
are posted on Google's own servers, so if Google removes them, 99% of
the replies will disappear.

Of course not.
Those replies have been posted through Google to usenet,
so they are still present on all other usenet servers,
until expired there.
Some of the commercial usenet services have an infinite expiry,
so everything is still there, somewhere,
(but you may have to pay for it)

Incidentally, a survey a while back showed that about 25% of AUEers
used GG, by far the largest proportion of any of the possibilities. No,
I don't know where to find the message with that information.

Doubtless one of you computer geeks could replicate the study.

Disturbing: I typed "gooks" instead of "geeks" (same finger, different
hand; not a usual sort of typo) and the squiggler didn't squiggle it.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 08:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as
spam, why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete
them from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet,
and since google is a search index that indexes everything it can,
they are unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone
might search for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around
the world.

Of course who will what?

I replied to the statement "If they delete the spam threads from their
own servers, people won't reply to them" It is literally the line
immediately above my statement.
How is this at all confusing?

No they won't, because almost all the replies are in GoogleGroups and
are posted on Google's own servers, so if Google removes them, 99% of
the replies will disappear.

Of course not.
Those replies have been posted through Google to usenet,
so they are still present on all other usenet servers,
until expired there.
Some of the commercial usenet services have an infinite expiry,
so everything is still there, somewhere,
(but you may have to pay for it)

Incidentally, a survey a while back showed that about 25% of AUEers
used GG, by far the largest proportion of any of the possibilities. No,
I don't know where to find the message with that information.
Doubtless one of you computer geeks could replicate the study.

Just sample some User-Agent headers.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Disturbing: I typed "gooks" instead of "geeks" (same finger, different
hand; not a usual sort of typo) and the squiggler didn't squiggle it.

Why should it, it is a good American word.
As in:
"The only Gook an American can trust,
is a Gook that's got his yellow head bust".

Jan

[Tony Cooper]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 08:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as
spam, why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete
them from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet,
and since google is a search index that indexes everything it can,
they are unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone
might search for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around
the world.

Of course who will what?

I replied to the statement "If they delete the spam threads from their
own servers, people won't reply to them" It is literally the line
immediately above my statement.
How is this at all confusing?

No they won't, because almost all the replies are in GoogleGroups and
are posted on Google's own servers, so if Google removes them, 99% of
the replies will disappear.

Of course not.
Those replies have been posted through Google to usenet,
so they are still present on all other usenet servers,
until expired there.
Some of the commercial usenet services have an infinite expiry,
so everything is still there, somewhere,
(but you may have to pay for it)

Incidentally, a survey a while back showed that about 25% of AUEers
used GG, by far the largest proportion of any of the possibilities. No,
I don't know where to find the message with that information.
Doubtless one of you computer geeks could replicate the study.

Just sample some User-Agent headers.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Disturbing: I typed "gooks" instead of "geeks" (same finger, different
hand; not a usual sort of typo) and the squiggler didn't squiggle it.

Why should it, it is a good American word.
"The only Gook an American can trust,
is a Gook that's got his yellow head bust".

The Fugs have dropped off the Hit Parade list here.

[J. J. Lodder]

[-]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
Of course not.
Those replies have been posted through Google to usenet,
so they are still present on all other usenet servers,
until expired there.
Some of the commercial usenet services have an infinite expiry,
so everything is still there, somewhere,
(but you may have to pay for it)

Incidentally, a survey a while back showed that about 25% of AUEers
used GG, by far the largest proportion of any of the possibilities. No,
I don't know where to find the message with that information.
Doubtless one of you computer geeks could replicate the study.

Just sample some User-Agent headers.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Disturbing: I typed "gooks" instead of "geeks" (same finger, different
hand; not a usual sort of typo) and the squiggler didn't squiggle it.

Why should it, it is a good American word.
"The only Gook an American can trust,
is a Gook that's got his yellow head bust".

The Fugs have dropped off the Hit Parade list here.

Classics don't need hit lists,

Jan

[Steve Hayes]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 08:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as
spam, why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete
them from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet,
and since google is a search index that indexes everything it can,
they are unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone
might search for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around
the world.

Of course who will what?

I replied to the statement "If they delete the spam threads from their
own servers, people won't reply to them" It is literally the line
immediately above my statement.
How is this at all confusing?

No they won't, because almost all the replies are in GoogleGroups and
are posted on Google's own servers, so if Google removes them, 99% of
the replies will disappear.

Of course not.
Those replies have been posted through Google to usenet,
so they are still present on all other usenet servers,
until expired there.
Some of the commercial usenet services have an infinite expiry,
so everything is still there, somewhere,
(but you may have to pay for it)

But if Google removes the thread there will be no more replies, since
there will not be anything to reply to. As I said, 99% of the replies
are to the threads on Google. If they don't reply on Google, then
those non replies cannot be propagated top Usenet.

A reply on Google groups can only be propagated to Usenet if it
exists.

If it does not exist, it cannot be propagated to Usenet.

[Lewis]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 08:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as
spam, why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete
them from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet,
and since google is a search index that indexes everything it can,
they are unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone
might search for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around
the world.

Of course who will what?

I replied to the statement "If they delete the spam threads from their
own servers, people won't reply to them" It is literally the line
immediately above my statement.
How is this at all confusing?

No they won't, because almost all the replies are in GoogleGroups and
are posted on Google's own servers, so if Google removes them, 99% of
the replies will disappear.

Of course not.
Those replies have been posted through Google to usenet,
so they are still present on all other usenet servers,
until expired there.
Some of the commercial usenet services have an infinite expiry,
so everything is still there, somewhere,
(but you may have to pay for it)

But if Google removes the thread there will be no more replies, since
there will not be anything to reply to.

That is not true, of course, since posts are distributed. That is the
point of usenet. When you post a message on Server A it will show up on
Server B and C and QQZA within seconds. Minutes, at the most.

Post by Steve Hayes
As I said, 99% of the replies
are to the threads on Google.

87.36% of statistics are made up.

[Snidely]

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 08:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as
spam, why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete
them from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet,
and since google is a search index that indexes everything it can,
they are unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone
might search for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around
the world.

Of course who will what?

I replied to the statement "If they delete the spam threads from their
own servers, people won't reply to them" It is literally the line
immediately above my statement.
How is this at all confusing?

No they won't, because almost all the replies are in GoogleGroups and
are posted on Google's own servers, so if Google removes them, 99% of
the replies will disappear.

Of course not.
Those replies have been posted through Google to usenet,
so they are still present on all other usenet servers,
until expired there.
Some of the commercial usenet services have an infinite expiry,
so everything is still there, somewhere,
(but you may have to pay for it)

But if Google removes the thread there will be no more replies, since
there will not be anything to reply to.

That is not true, of course, since posts are distributed. That is the
point of usenet. When you post a message on Server A it will show up on
Server B and C and QQZA within seconds. Minutes, at the most.

Post by Steve Hayes
As I said, 99% of the replies
are to the threads on Google.

87.36% of statistics are made up.

<quote>
NewsReader : G2/1.0
Subject : Re: Hookup near me to fuck tonight : find for fuck
Date : Fri, 26 Feb 2021 04:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Author : cathrine jon <***@gmail.com>
</quote>

That's typical of the posts in that thread that aren't rom AUEistas.
Examine similar threads if you want.

If you use GG to reply to these messages, and you can't find them on
GG, then you won't be replying, now will you?

/dps

[Lewis]

Post by Snidely
If you use GG to reply to these messages, and you can't find them on
GG, then you won't be replying, now will you?

And you seem to be under the impression those message ONLY exist on GG.
They do not. Other servers may have some spam blocking, but in general
those posts will exist on any news server.

[Snidely]

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
If you use GG to reply to these messages, and you can't find them on
GG, then you won't be replying, now will you?

And you seem to be under the impression those message ONLY exist on GG.
They do not. Other servers may have some spam blocking, but in general
those posts will exist on any news server.

Yes, but then you have to use those servers to see the messages, and
the spammers haven't bothered with that.


Of course, they can just start a new thread every time, but they don't
seem to like to do that.

/dps

[Lewis]

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
If you use GG to reply to these messages, and you can't find them on
GG, then you won't be replying, now will you?

And you seem to be under the impression those message ONLY exist on GG.
They do not. Other servers may have some spam blocking, but in general
those posts will exist on any news server.

Yes, but then you have to use those servers to see the messages

No. Do you have ANY idea how USENET works? At all?

spammer posts on GG. Message is distributed to other servers. Google
deletes the message. Spammer replies to post on ZZFX server. Reply
(including original message) appears on other servers INCLUDING GOOGLE
GROUPS.

[Snidely]

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
If you use GG to reply to these messages, and you can't find them on
GG, then you won't be replying, now will you?

And you seem to be under the impression those message ONLY exist on GG.
They do not. Other servers may have some spam blocking, but in general
those posts will exist on any news server.

Yes, but then you have to use those servers to see the messages

No. Do you have ANY idea how USENET works? At all?
spammer posts on GG. Message is distributed to other servers. Google
deletes the message. Spammer replies to post on ZZFX server. Reply
(including original message) appears on other servers INCLUDING GOOGLE
GROUPS

Oh, pay attention to what's happening here. ALL these spam messages
are posted via GG, and the spammer may not even have a clue that other
servers exist.

/dps

[Peter T. Daniels]

Oh, pay attention to what's happening here. ALL these spam messages
are posted via GG, and the spammer may not even have a clue that other
servers exist.

Wondering what messages you're seeing, that GG isn't showing me?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Oh, pay attention to what's happening here. ALL these spam messages
are posted via GG, and the spammer may not even have a clue that other
servers exist.

Wondering what messages you're seeing, that GG isn't showing me?

As I see GG, the most recent "Hookup near me" message was on March 6,
and the most recent "Mary [...] Whoreshippers" message was on March 7.

Do you (or did you, if you don't see them any more) report those consistently?
Maybe has Google has decided you really don't want to see them. That would
be like a slowly updated killfile.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Oh, pay attention to what's happening here. ALL these spam messages
are posted via GG, and the spammer may not even have a clue that other
servers exist.

Wondering what messages you're seeing, that GG isn't showing me?

As I see GG, the most recent "Hookup near me" message was on March 6,
and the most recent "Mary [...] Whoreshippers" message was on March 7.
Do you (or did you, if you don't see them any more) report those consistently?

I do. I report the sex threads as Spam and the drug threads as Promoting
Regulated Goods or Services.

They then appear in the thread list as "This message has been reported ..."
but without showing me the header, and "To see it anyway, click here." Old
GG used to collapse a sequence of them into a single non-shown line, but
now if there's a spate of drug offers, it just shows a series of unidentified
blocked lines.

Post by Jerry Friedman
Maybe has Google has decided you really don't want to see them. That would
be like a slowly updated killfile.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Oh, pay attention to what's happening here. ALL these spam messages
are posted via GG, and the spammer may not even have a clue that other
servers exist.

Wondering what messages you're seeing, that GG isn't showing me?

As I see GG, the most recent "Hookup near me" message was on March 6,
and the most recent "Mary [...] Whoreshippers" message was on March 7.
Do you (or did you, if you don't see them any more) report those consistently?

I do. I report the sex threads as Spam and the drug threads as Promoting
Regulated Goods or Services.
They then appear in the thread list as "This message has been reported ..."
but without showing me the header, and "To see it anyway, click here." Old
GG used to collapse a sequence of them into a single non-shown line, but
now if there's a spate of drug offers, it just shows a series of unidentified
blocked lines.

"This message has been reported as abuse." I had to go up to rec.music.
classical for an example, as there haven't been any here in a while.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman
Maybe has Google has decided you really don't want to see them. That would
be like a slowly updated killfile.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2021 21:09:34 GMT, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Oh, pay attention to what's happening here. ALL these spam messages
are posted via GG, and the spammer may not even have a clue that
other servers exist.

Wondering what messages you're seeing, that GG isn't showing me?

As I see GG, the most recent "Hookup near me" message was on March 6,
and the most recent "Mary [...] Whoreshippers" message was on March 7.
Do you (or did you, if you don't see them any more) report those
consistently? Maybe has Google has decided you really don't want to
see them. That would be like a slowly updated killfile.

Yeah, right; like Google takes any notice.

[Anton Shepelev]

spammer posts on GG. Message is distributed to other
servers. Google deletes the message. Spammer replies to
post on ZZFX server. Reply (including original message)
appears on other servers INCLUDING GOOGLE GROUPS.

But Mr. Spammer posts exclusively via GG, not via the re-
spectable ZZFX server.

[Lewis]

Post by Anton Shepelev

spammer posts on GG. Message is distributed to other
servers. Google deletes the message. Spammer replies to
post on ZZFX server. Reply (including original message)
appears on other servers INCLUDING GOOGLE GROUPS.

But Mr. Spammer posts exclusively via GG

That is certainly not true, I have several news servers that provide free
no-account access to USENET blacklisted because of the spam they produce.

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Anton Shepelev
But Mr. Spammer posts exclusively via GG

That is certainly not true, I have several news servers
that provide free no-account access to USENET blacklisted
because of the spam they produce.

In my experience, SPAM through such servers is nigh non-ex-
istent because abuse reports sent by e-mail to addresses
listed for this special purpose are hndled very quickly and
efficiently. Most of the SPAM that I see these days is from
GG.

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 22:10:02 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis

Post by Snidely
If you use GG to reply to these messages, and you can't find them on
GG, then you won't be replying, now will you?

And you seem to be under the impression those message ONLY exist on GG.
They do not. Other servers may have some spam blocking, but in general
those posts will exist on any news server.

Yes, but then you have to use those servers to see the messages

No. Do you have ANY idea how USENET works? At all?
spammer posts on GG. Message is distributed to other servers. Google
deletes the message. Spammer replies to post on ZZFX server. Reply
(including original message) appears on other servers INCLUDING GOOGLE
GROUPS.

Do you have any idea of how SPAMMERS work?

Spammer reads message on Googlegroups. Spammer replies. Messages is
propagated.

Original message is removed from Googlegroups. Spammer does bnot read
message. Spammer does not reply. Non-reply is NOT propagated.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Snidely
<quote>
NewsReader : G2/1.0
Subject : Re: Hookup near me to fuck tonight : find for fuck
Date : Fri, 26 Feb 2021 04:58:13 -0800 (PST)
</quote>
That's typical of the posts in that thread that aren't rom AUEistas.
Examine similar threads if you want.
If you use GG to reply to these messages, and you can't find them on
GG, then you won't be replying, now will you?

I don't know what Lewis was babbling about, but what's your point?
That thread only appears any more [two words] when a message
is added. The only messages added to it in recent months were from
Mudd and Covid-Bowden. I infer that gmail no longer shows random
Usenet thread-starts in gmail searches.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 17:35:39 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 08:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as
spam, why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete
them from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet,
and since google is a search index that indexes everything it can,
they are unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone
might search for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around
the world.

Of course who will what?

I replied to the statement "If they delete the spam threads from their
own servers, people won't reply to them" It is literally the line
immediately above my statement.
How is this at all confusing?

No they won't, because almost all the replies are in GoogleGroups and
are posted on Google's own servers, so if Google removes them, 99% of
the replies will disappear.

Of course not.
Those replies have been posted through Google to usenet,
so they are still present on all other usenet servers,
until expired there.
Some of the commercial usenet services have an infinite expiry,
so everything is still there, somewhere,
(but you may have to pay for it)

But if Google removes the thread there will be no more replies, since
there will not be anything to reply to.

That is not true, of course, since posts are distributed. That is the
point of usenet. When you post a message on Server A it will show up on
Server B and C and QQZA within seconds. Minutes, at the most.

Yes, but if the thread is removed from server G (for Googlegroups)
then no one can reply to it there, because the original message is not
there for them to re read.

And if they do not reply to it, their replies CANNOT be distributed.

How difficult is that to understand?

[Lewis]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 17:35:39 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 08:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as
spam, why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete
them from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet,
and since google is a search index that indexes everything it can,
they are unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone
might search for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around
the world.

Of course who will what?

I replied to the statement "If they delete the spam threads from their
own servers, people won't reply to them" It is literally the line
immediately above my statement.
How is this at all confusing?

No they won't, because almost all the replies are in GoogleGroups and
are posted on Google's own servers, so if Google removes them, 99% of
the replies will disappear.

Of course not.
Those replies have been posted through Google to usenet,
so they are still present on all other usenet servers,
until expired there.
Some of the commercial usenet services have an infinite expiry,
so everything is still there, somewhere,
(but you may have to pay for it)

But if Google removes the thread there will be no more replies, since
there will not be anything to reply to.

That is not true, of course, since posts are distributed. That is the
point of usenet. When you post a message on Server A it will show up on
Server B and C and QQZA within seconds. Minutes, at the most.

Yes, but if the thread is removed from server G (for Googlegroups)
then no one can reply to it there, because the original message is not
there for them to re read.

So now you have shifted from delting the spam post to deleting the
entire thread?

Post by Steve Hayes
How difficult is that to understand?

You've made you decision, reality be damned. Good look with getting
goggle to implement it.

[Snidely]

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 17:35:39 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 08:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 23:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as
spam, why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete
them from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet,
and since google is a search index that indexes everything it can,
they are unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely,
someone might search for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around
the world.

Of course who will what?

I replied to the statement "If they delete the spam threads from their
own servers, people won't reply to them" It is literally the line
immediately above my statement.
How is this at all confusing?

No they won't, because almost all the replies are in GoogleGroups and
are posted on Google's own servers, so if Google removes them, 99% of
the replies will disappear.

Of course not.
Those replies have been posted through Google to usenet,
so they are still present on all other usenet servers,
until expired there.
Some of the commercial usenet services have an infinite expiry,
so everything is still there, somewhere,
(but you may have to pay for it)

But if Google removes the thread there will be no more replies, since
there will not be anything to reply to.

That is not true, of course, since posts are distributed. That is the
point of usenet. When you post a message on Server A it will show up on
Server B and C and QQZA within seconds. Minutes, at the most.

Yes, but if the thread is removed from server G (for Googlegroups)
then no one can reply to it there, because the original message is not
there for them to re read.

So now you have shifted from delting the spam post to deleting the
entire thread?

no. Try reading carefully. There are no responses to the original
message after the original message is deleted.

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
How difficult is that to understand?

You've made you decision, reality be damned. Good look with getting
goggle to implement it.

Just link it to a shortfall in their advertising revenue.

/dps

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:36:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
So now you have shifted from delting the spam post to deleting the
entire thread?

No that's what I thought Google should do.

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
How difficult is that to understand?

You've made you decision, reality be damned. Good look with getting
goggle to implement it.

And perhaps they have done so -- I'm seeing quite a less spam than I
used to.

[Janet]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:36:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
So now you have shifted from delting the spam post to deleting the
entire thread?

No that's what I thought Google should do.

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
How difficult is that to understand?

You've made you decision, reality be damned. Good look with getting
goggle to implement it.

And perhaps they have done so -- I'm seeing quite a less spam than I
used to.

I rarely see any spam on usenet groups because my news server filters
it out.

Nothing to do with google or google groups.

Janet

[Snidely]

On Friday, Janet pointed out that ...

Post by Janet

Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:36:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
So now you have shifted from delting the spam post to deleting the
entire thread?

No that's what I thought Google should do.

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
How difficult is that to understand?

You've made you decision, reality be damned. Good look with getting
goggle to implement it.

And perhaps they have done so -- I'm seeing quite a less spam than I
used to.

I rarely see any spam on usenet groups because my news server filters
it out.
Nothing to do with google or google groups.

YMMV with different servers, and Steve uses a different server than you
do. ES catches a lot, but not all; what does show up seems to come
from GG.

/dps

[AnthonyL]

Post by Snidely
On Friday, Janet pointed out that ...

Post by Janet

Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:36:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
So now you have shifted from delting the spam post to deleting the
entire thread?

No that's what I thought Google should do.

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
How difficult is that to understand?

You've made you decision, reality be damned. Good look with getting
goggle to implement it.

And perhaps they have done so -- I'm seeing quite a less spam than I
used to.

I rarely see any spam on usenet groups because my news server filters
it out.
Nothing to do with google or google groups.

YMMV with different servers, and Steve uses a different server than you
do. ES catches a lot, but not all; what does show up seems to come
from GG.

uk.legal is now unusable on ES and I don't think it's a GG poster.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as
spam, why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete
them from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet,
and since google is a search index that indexes everything it can,
they are unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone
might search for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around
the world.

If it's not visible to GG users, there'll be no numpty response from
other GG users. HTH.

[Lewis]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
fOn Fri, 5 Feb 2021 06:59:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
They would "hide" messages marked as spam from those who reported
them, but only rarely delete them, and if a thread was marked as
spam, why not just delete the whole thread?

And how do you propose they delete Usenet posts? They COULD delete
them from their servers, but that doesn't delete them from Usenet,
and since google is a search index that indexes everything it can,
they are unlikely to delete something that, albeit unlikely, someone
might search for.

I don't.
If they delete the spam threads from their own servers, people won't
reply to them

Of course they will because there are thousands of newservers around
the world.

If it's not visible to GG users, there'll be no numpty response from
other GG users. HTH.

But there will be plenty of replies from other numpty users.

[Anton Shepelev]

If it's not visible to GG users, there'll be no numpty
response from other GG users. HTH.

But there will be plenty of replies from other numpty
users.

Bear in mind that:

1. We are talking about Google's blockage of newsgroups
in their own GoogleGroups interface.

2. Most of SPAM, illegal content, and clueless users come
to Usenet from GoogleGroups.

Obviously Google have chosen to ignore this vicious circle
and are folding GoogleGroups upon itself.

[Lewis]

Post by Anton Shepelev

If it's not visible to GG users, there'll be no numpty
response from other GG users. HTH.

But there will be plenty of replies from other numpty
users.

1. We are talking about Google's blockage of newsgroups
in their own GoogleGroups interface.

blocking of NEWSGROUPS? The topic was google deleting spam posts.

Post by Anton Shepelev
2. Most of SPAM, illegal content, and clueless users come
to Usenet from GoogleGroups.

Oh, if only that were true.

Post by Anton Shepelev
Obviously Google have chosen to ignore this vicious circle
and are folding GoogleGroups upon itself.

Google has no motivation to do anything about Usenet but index it, and
it is obvious they do not care about it at all as has been clear since
they bought DejaVu and eviscerated it.

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Lewis

We are talking about Google's blockage of newsgroups in
their own GoogleGroups interface.

blocking of NEWSGROUPS? The topic was google deleting spam
posts.

The topic may have drifted to this, but it came up as a sen-
sible alternative to blocking newsgroups entire. Yes, that
is what Google are doing. Re-read this branch of the thread-
tree from the beginning. Futhermore, I suspect that whatever
messages I have reported as illegal, GoggleGropus hides from
me but not from other users. Nor does it take any action
against the Google accounts that posted them.

It is for fear that Google might block these groups that I
started the thread. As the saw sayeth, warned means armed.

[Quinn C]

Post by Lewis

Post by Anton Shepelev
2. Most of SPAM, illegal content, and clueless users come
to Usenet from GoogleGroups.

Oh, if only that were true.

It's been true for a while. I get rid of most of the spam by hiding all
posts coming from GG with a gmail address. I have exceptions for a few
worthwhile posters, but they have to come to my attention first. Still,
the combination does make it unlikely that I miss much.

Post by Lewis

Post by Anton Shepelev
Obviously Google have chosen to ignore this vicious circle
and are folding GoogleGroups upon itself.

Google has no motivation to do anything about Usenet but index it, and
it is obvious they do not care about it at all as has been clear since
they bought DejaVu and eviscerated it.

I'm sure Google keeps everything they collect, but they don't show
everything. They don't show posts marked X-No-Archive at all now (they
used to show them for a few days and then hide them, which was a
sensible interpretation of the header, unlike the current policy.) So it
would make sense to also not show spam, much of which they could catch
even simply by the traditional Breidbart index.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Lewis

2. Most of SPAM, illegal content, and clueless users come
to Usenet from GoogleGroups.

Oh, if only that were true.

It's been true for a while. I get rid of most of the spam by hiding all
posts coming from GG with a gmail address. I have exceptions for a few
worthwhile posters, but they have to come to my attention first. Still,
the combination does make it unlikely that I miss much.

There hasn't been anything to "miss" for months. Whatever else NGG
has done, it seems to have been decoupled from the gmail search
engine that resulted in drive-by posts and the sex ads that PM couldn't
keep from savoring.

Though I don't know what "illegal content" Anton may have been seeing.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C

Post by Lewis

2. Most of SPAM, illegal content, and clueless users come
to Usenet from GoogleGroups.

Oh, if only that were true.

It's been true for a while. I get rid of most of the spam by hiding all
posts coming from GG with a gmail address. I have exceptions for a few
worthwhile posters, but they have to come to my attention first. Still,
the combination does make it unlikely that I miss much.

There hasn't been anything to "miss" for months.

My rule, as described, would make me miss David K and Snidely (when on
GG), among others. My point was that I haven't added to the list of
exceptions in a long time.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C

Post by Lewis

2. Most of SPAM, illegal content, and clueless users come
to Usenet from GoogleGroups.

Oh, if only that were true.

It's been true for a while. I get rid of most of the spam by hiding all
posts coming from GG with a gmail address. I have exceptions for a few
worthwhile posters, but they have to come to my attention first. Still,
the combination does make it unlikely that I miss much.

There hasn't been anything to "miss" for months.

My rule, as described, would make me miss David K and Snidely (when on
GG), among others. My point was that I haven't added to the list of
exceptions in a long time.

I should have said "get rid of." You referred to "spam." There is basically
no "spam" to ignore. (except messages from Mudd, "Pamela," and Lewis).

[Adam Funk]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C

Post by Lewis

2. Most of SPAM, illegal content, and clueless users come
to Usenet from GoogleGroups.

Oh, if only that were true.

It's been true for a while. I get rid of most of the spam by hiding all
posts coming from GG with a gmail address. I have exceptions for a few
worthwhile posters, but they have to come to my attention first. Still,
the combination does make it unlikely that I miss much.

There hasn't been anything to "miss" for months.

My rule, as described, would make me miss David K and Snidely (when on
GG), among others. My point was that I haven't added to the list of
exceptions in a long time.

I should have said "get rid of." You referred to "spam." There is basically
no "spam" to ignore. (except messages from Mudd, "Pamela," and Lewis).

There are standard definitions of spam, none of which are synonyms of
"posts by people I don't like".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
I suspect that the real reason they would not take action against the
individual spammers is that 99.999% of them were gmail users, and
therefore Google customers, and Google found their custom profitable.

I'm not sure why you think gmail is related. Google COULD ban spammers
from their googlegroups, but they have no motivation to do so.

Has anyone noticed that the number of drive-by postings (responding
to the first message in a thread, no matter how old) has now dropped
to seemingly zero? They must have done something to decouple gmail
from GG.

(The previous poster, as usual, allows his wonted cynicism to interfere
with any factual content.)

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
I suspect that the real reason they would not take action against
the individual spammers is that 99.999% of them were gmail users,
and therefore Google customers, and Google found their custom
profitable.

I'm not sure why you think gmail is related. Google COULD ban
spammers from their googlegroups, but they have no motivation to do
so.

Has anyone noticed that the number of drive-by postings (responding
to the first message in a thread, no matter how old) has now dropped
to seemingly zero? They must have done something to decouple gmail
from GG.
(The previous poster, as usual, allows his wonted cynicism to
interfere with any factual content.)

I've just tried a Google search on a couple of topics that have been
discussed in AUE, with zero results. It looks to me as if the search
engine no longer looks in the AUE archives.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 5:27:25 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
...

Post by Peter Moylan
I've just tried a Google search on a couple of topics that have been
discussed in AUE, with zero results. It looks to me as if the search
engine no longer looks in the AUE archives.

My searches of a.u.e. yesterday and today have turned up things from the
past. Are you doing regular Google searches, or searches of Google Groups,
or searches of a.u.e.?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan
I've just tried a Google search on a couple of topics that have been
discussed in AUE, with zero results. It looks to me as if the search
engine no longer looks in the AUE archives.

My searches of a.u.e. yesterday and today have turned up things from the
past. Are you doing regular Google searches, or searches of Google Groups,
or searches of a.u.e.?

Remember back when he couldn't tell the difference between
GG and gmail?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Peter Moylan
I've just tried a Google search on a couple of topics that have
been discussed in AUE, with zero results. It looks to me as if the
search engine no longer looks in the AUE archives.

My searches of a.u.e. yesterday and today have turned up things from
the past. Are you doing regular Google searches, or searches of
Google Groups, or searches of a.u.e.?

Regular Google searches, which is probably the way most drive-by posters
reach us.

Presumably I'd get a different result if I went to Google Groups,
because that seems to use a different search algorithm.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan
I've just tried a Google search on a couple of topics that have
been discussed in AUE, with zero results. It looks to me as if the
search engine no longer looks in the AUE archives.

My searches of a.u.e. yesterday and today have turned up things from
the past. Are you doing regular Google searches, or searches of
Google Groups, or searches of a.u.e.?

Regular Google searches, which is probably the way most drive-by posters
reach us.

How can you continue to maintain that, when they seem to have ceased
when NGG started, apparently having been decoupled from gmail searches?

Do you really miss the sex threads that much?

Post by Peter Moylan
Presumably I'd get a different result if I went to Google Groups,
because that seems to use a different search algorithm.

[CDB]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
I suspect that the real reason they would not take action
against the individual spammers is that 99.999% of them were
gmail users, and therefore Google customers, and Google found
their custom profitable.

I'm not sure why you think gmail is related. Google COULD ban
spammers from their googlegroups, but they have no motivation to
do so.

Has anyone noticed that the number of drive-by postings (responding
to the first message in a thread, no matter how old) has now
dropped to seemingly zero? They must have done something to
decouple gmail from GG.
(The previous poster, as usual, allows his wonted cynicism to
interfere with any factual content.)

I've just tried a Google search on a couple of topics that have been
discussed in AUE, with zero results. It looks to me as if the search
engine no longer looks in the AUE archives.

I just found an archive while looking for a citation for bebercito. I
searched for "alt.usage.english" using Microsoft Edge.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by CDB

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
I suspect that the real reason they would not take action
against the individual spammers is that 99.999% of them were
gmail users, and therefore Google customers, and Google found
their custom profitable.

I'm not sure why you think gmail is related. Google COULD ban
spammers from their googlegroups, but they have no motivation
to do so.

Has anyone noticed that the number of drive-by postings
(responding to the first message in a thread, no matter how old)
has now dropped to seemingly zero? They must have done something
to decouple gmail from GG.
(The previous poster, as usual, allows his wonted cynicism to
interfere with any factual content.)

I've just tried a Google search on a couple of topics that have
been discussed in AUE, with zero results. It looks to me as if the
search engine no longer looks in the AUE archives.

I just found an archive while looking for a citation for bebercito.
I searched for "alt.usage.english" using Microsoft Edge.

Yes, but can you find a phrase that has been used in AUE discussions,
without mentioning alt.usage.english?

It's more complicated that I thought, though. A search for "Jenn faith
english usage" found nothing in this newsgroup. However, a search for
"Jenn faith alt.usage.english" did turn up a couple of relevant
articles. Maybe we've just been downgraded by the search engine on the
grounds of low traffic.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by CDB

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lewis

Post by Steve Hayes
I suspect that the real reason they would not take action
against the individual spammers is that 99.999% of them were
gmail users, and therefore Google customers, and Google found
their custom profitable.

Google doesn't make money from users, but from showing ads to users.

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by CDB

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Lewis
I'm not sure why you think gmail is related. Google COULD ban
spammers from their googlegroups, but they have no motivation
to do so.

Has anyone noticed that the number of drive-by postings
(responding to the first message in a thread, no matter how old)
has now dropped to seemingly zero? They must have done something
to decouple gmail from GG.
(The previous poster, as usual, allows his wonted cynicism to
interfere with any factual content.)

I've just tried a Google search on a couple of topics that have
been discussed in AUE, with zero results. It looks to me as if the
search engine no longer looks in the AUE archives.

I just found an archive while looking for a citation for bebercito.
I searched for "alt.usage.english" using Microsoft Edge.

Yes, but can you find a phrase that has been used in AUE discussions,
without mentioning alt.usage.english?
It's more complicated that I thought, though. A search for "Jenn faith
english usage" found nothing in this newsgroup. However, a search for
"Jenn faith alt.usage.english" did turn up a couple of relevant
articles. Maybe we've just been downgraded by the search engine on the
grounds of low traffic.

Or maybe it's because this is in fact AUE and not AEU? The words
"English" and "usage" would have to have been in a message, and
there's no reason to suppose that they occurred in one.