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Polish part of the Usenet has been archived (not by me) at: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$1@paganini.bofh.team
A valuable search engine that allows you to find out
if a message is nocemized and to consult the nocem *and* the message.
You don't have to be an admin to issue nocems, you just have to have admins trust you.
In article <urelti$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
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.
Yes, in the last six months, a group of one or two users increased the
spam volume more than 10,000 times.
Last month, spam rejects here averaged about thirty thousand a day, for
past several days since google pulled the plug, spam rejects now average
only nine hundred a day.
(we outright blocked googlegroups a long time ago, so the 30K value will likely contain legitimate poster collateral damage, but I doubt that
number would be in the thousands)
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.
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.
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.
Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Harry S Robins <stanleyrobins@nothere.uk> writes:
I wouldn't blame Google so much as the spammers themselves, where it may >>> have been a single "spam king" for all we know, where I never understood >>> what the purpose was since the English-language spam was nearly
incomprehensible.
Is there evidence for it being one small set of spammers software doing
most of the exponential increase in spam that escalated only a few months >>> prior to Google shutting the whole thing down?
There were tens (or hundreds) of thousands of messages in Thai posted to
sci.crypt right before Google stopped peering, and I really doubt it
served any purpose except of destroying that newsgroup.
There are other examples, too.
A cynical person might imagine that it was government inspired.
Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> posted:
There were tens (or hundreds) of thousands of messages in Thai posted to
sci.crypt right before Google stopped peering, and I really doubt it
served any purpose except of destroying that newsgroup.
I think what may have happened was that the spammers realised that
was indexing anything posted in G.Groups and so it could function as SEO spam, regardless of whether anyone actually read the posts.
There were tens (or hundreds) of thousands of messages in Thai posted to sci.crypt right before Google stopped peering, and I really doubt it
served any purpose except of destroying that newsgroup.
Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> posted:
There were tens (or hundreds) of thousands of messages in Thai posted to
sci.crypt right before Google stopped peering, and I really doubt it
served any purpose except of destroying that newsgroup.
I think what may have happened was that the spammers realised that Google
was indexing anything posted in G.Groups and so it could function as SEO >spam, regardless of whether anyone actually read the posts.
--
Colin Macleod.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:19:56 +0000, Colin Macleod wrote:
I think what may have happened was that the spammers realised that
was indexing anything posted in G.Groups and so it could function as SEO spam, regardless of whether anyone actually read the posts.
That was my view also. It makes sense as getting links into search
engines is a goal of some.
This is why I don't see it continuing at that level post-GG on sites
like yours and mine. Once GG closed a small group of people ran
screaming that my "web portal" was going to be just the same problem as
GG. Some even block my entire server out of this fear, which is of
course their choice :)
I doubt the spammers even know of the existence of our sites and if they
do, we are way to small to make any impact. Plus, at least on mine and I assume yours, there is filtering in place to make mass spamming
impossible. Small spamming, sure, but not dumping tons of articles every second.
Anyway, that's the long version of me saying, "I agree with you" lol.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 469 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 45:04:19 |
| Calls: | 9,449 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,596 |
| Messages: | 6,112,014 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
