(comp.lang.c) More musings on the spam problem...

[Kenny McCormack]

The good news: The spam problem (both the so-called "Thai spam" and the
"mushroom spam") is gone from clc and clc++, because Google has (for
reasons of its own) banned both groups. What's funny about this is that
normally people on these groups would be p*ssed off at Google for banning
them, but in this instance, it is a happy coincidence that it stops the
spam. So, we're good with it.

The bad news is that it is still alive and well in many of the other
groups. Right now, comp.editors is getting slammed - about 1 spam per
minute, 24/7.

So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all
newsgroups, not just these 2?

[Mike Terry]

Post by Kenny McCormack
The good news: The spam problem (both the so-called "Thai spam" and the
"mushroom spam") is gone from clc and clc++, because Google has (for
reasons of its own) banned both groups. What's funny about this is that
normally people on these groups would be p*ssed off at Google for banning
them, but in this instance, it is a happy coincidence that it stops the
spam. So, we're good with it.
The bad news is that it is still alive and well in many of the other
groups. Right now, comp.editors is getting slammed - about 1 spam per
minute, 24/7.
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all
newsgroups, not just these 2?

I don't see disconnection from GG as a Good Thing in the long term. Many groups have the core of
their followers using GG, and how many will be persuaded to migrate to Usenet? But the real problem
as I see it is for long term survival groups need a stream of NEW users, and I'd guess close to 100%
of those come via GG, and hopefully they're persuaded later by regulars of the advantages of Usenet.

When I started using the internet my ISP provided the connection obviously, and a document
explaining how to configure my computer to connect to their email and USENET servers. So email,
Usenet, and WWW were the 3 motivations for "getting the internet", and newsgroups were the place you
went for general discussion. Those days are long gone, and whilst my current ISP still has a Usenet
service (subcontracted to Giganews) there's absolutely no mention of it in their advertising, legal
contracts, etc. and you have to hunt hard, knowing what you're looking for, to find any help pages
for it. So no new internet users are going to think "Right, now how do I get a Usenet client, and
where's my Usenet server?!" If they eventually find Usenet it will likely be via GG.

Disconnection from GG will cut off the supply of new users - a kind of "kiss of death" for the long
term health of the group. Groups with an essentially static membership could obviously continue as
they are for years, dieing slowly as their members age and finally depart the group. It's like
these groups are slowly dieing anyway, so another nail in the coffin for long-term Usenet health is
hardly a problem - they want the SPAM gone NOW...

It would be better long term if Google could apply some better SPAM filtering technology, perhaps
leveraging all their clever AI technology?, to block the spam entering the system in the first
place. It's at the point of initial entry that SPAM can be handled with minimum hassle; once it's
circulating around the system it's an order of magnitude more effort to deal with. [Yeah, I get that
Usenet SPAM is not Google's priority!]


Mike.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Post by Mike Terry

Post by Kenny McCormack
The good news: The spam problem (both the so-called "Thai spam" and the
"mushroom spam") is gone from clc and clc++, because Google has (for
reasons of its own) banned both groups.  What's funny about this is that
normally people on these groups would be p*ssed off at Google for banning
them, but in this instance, it is a happy coincidence that it stops the
spam.  So, we're good with it.
The bad news is that it is still alive and well in many of the other
groups.  Right now, comp.editors is getting slammed - about 1 spam per
minute, 24/7.
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all
newsgroups, not just these 2?

I don't see disconnection from GG as a Good Thing in the long term.
Many groups have the core of their followers using GG, and how many will
be persuaded to migrate to Usenet?  But the real problem as I see it is
for long term survival groups need a stream of NEW users, and I'd guess
close to 100% of those come via GG, and hopefully they're persuaded
later by regulars of the advantages of Usenet.
When I started using the internet my ISP provided the connection
obviously, and a document explaining how to configure my computer to
connect to their email and USENET servers.  So email, Usenet, and WWW
were the 3 motivations for "getting the internet", and newsgroups were
the place you went for general discussion.  Those days are long gone,
and whilst my current ISP still has a Usenet service (subcontracted to
Giganews) there's absolutely no mention of it in their advertising,
legal contracts, etc. and you have to hunt hard, knowing what you're
looking for, to find any help pages for it.  So no new internet users
are going to think "Right, now how do I get a Usenet client, and where's
my Usenet server?!"  If they eventually find Usenet it will likely be
via GG.
Disconnection from GG will cut off the supply of new users - a kind of
"kiss of death" for the long term health of the group.  Groups with an
essentially static membership could obviously continue as they are for
years, dieing slowly as their members age and finally depart the group.
It's like these groups are slowly dieing anyway, so another nail in the
coffin for long-term Usenet health is hardly a problem - they want the
SPAM gone NOW...
It would be better long term if Google could apply some better SPAM
filtering technology, perhaps leveraging all their clever AI
technology?, to block the spam entering the system in the first place.

[...]

I wonder if somebody writes this method A simply trumps method B. The AI
says ahhh shit, trump, and blocks the message? lol.

[David Brown]

Post by Mike Terry
It would be better long term if Google could apply some better SPAM
filtering technology, perhaps leveraging all their clever AI
technology?, to block the spam entering the system in the first place.
It's at the point of initial entry that SPAM can be handled with minimum
hassle; once it's circulating around the system it's an order of
magnitude more effort to deal with. [Yeah, I get that Usenet SPAM is not
Google's priority!]

I agree with you here. Although most of the regulars in these technical
groups use proper Usenet clients, there are some who - for good or bad
reasons - use GG. And it is undoubtedly the main source of new members
for most groups.

Really, it is absurd that Google are not fixing this issue, because it
is not just a GG/Usenet matter. They need to make it more
time-consuming to open a new google account, involve more user
interaction, and put limits on the numbers of new accounts from the same
IP within a short time-frame. It is far too easy to automate the
creation of new gmail address accounts, and that is a big source of
spam, malware and other problems for all of google. If they stop the
bots getting the new accounts, then a simple decades-old Bayesian filter
is enough to identify these spam posts and close the account.

They could also easily have limits on Usenet postings from new accounts.
No posts for the first 20 minutes, then max 3 posts in the first 24
hours. Combine that with delays, limits and checks on new accounts, and
the problem would be solved without bothering existing users.

[Kaz Kylheku]

Post by David Brown
is not just a GG/Usenet matter. They need to make it more
time-consuming to open a new google account, involve more user
interaction,

Just not so demanding of time and interaction that it becomes easier to
set up Linux and run tin

Just not that it's easier to install Linux and run tin.

Post by David Brown
and put limits on the numbers of new accounts from the same
IP within a short time-frame.

"Same IP" only works against the pure amateurs who do not harness large
numbers of different IP addresses by using botnets or their own IP
blocks.

Before we blame everything on Google, the first step is getting
Microsoft to fix the problem that millions of Windows machines are under
the surreptitious control of bad actors.

[David Brown]

Post by Kaz Kylheku

Post by David Brown
is not just a GG/Usenet matter. They need to make it more
time-consuming to open a new google account, involve more user
interaction,

Just not so demanding of time and interaction that it becomes easier to
set up Linux and run tin
Just not that it's easier to install Linux and run tin.

Why would anyone choose to run tin, unless they have been using it for
the last three decades? There are many free Usenet clients available,
for Windows and Linux (and I guess also for Macs). They are not
particularly difficult to install or use, and no one needs to use an OS
that they don't want to use.

Pretty much any human who wants to use GG to access Usenet will already
have a google account - extra hurdles on making new google accounts
won't affect them. For the tiny proportion that need to make a new
account, it should not be an issue if they have an extra step or two of
captchas, SMS codes, or whatever.

Post by Kaz Kylheku

Post by David Brown
and put limits on the numbers of new accounts from the same
IP within a short time-frame.

"Same IP" only works against the pure amateurs who do not harness large
numbers of different IP addresses by using botnets or their own IP
blocks.

The spammers are amateurs. Any professional spammer group would know
perfectly well that flooding technical Usenet groups with Thai casino
adverts is useless.

Post by Kaz Kylheku
Before we blame everything on Google, the first step is getting
Microsoft to fix the problem that millions of Windows machines are under
the surreptitious control of bad actors.

I don't blame /everything/ on Google - but this one is most certainly
their fault.

[Mike Terry]

Post by Kaz Kylheku

is not just a GG/Usenet matter.  They need to make it more
time-consuming to open a new google account, involve more user
interaction,

Just not so demanding of time and interaction that it becomes easier to
set up Linux and run tin
Just not that it's easier to install Linux and run tin.

Why would anyone choose to run tin, unless they have been using it for the last three decades?
There are many free Usenet clients available, for Windows and Linux (and I guess also for Macs).
They are not particularly difficult to install or use, and no one needs to use an OS that they don't
want to use.
Pretty much any human who wants to use GG to access Usenet will already have a google account -
extra hurdles on making new google accounts won't affect them.  For the tiny proportion that need to
make a new account, it should not be an issue if they have an extra step or two of captchas, SMS
codes, or whatever.

Post by Kaz Kylheku

and put limits on the numbers of new accounts from the same
IP within a short time-frame.

"Same IP" only works against the pure amateurs who do not harness large
numbers of different IP addresses by using botnets or their own IP
blocks.

The spammers are amateurs.  Any professional spammer group would know perfectly well that flooding
technical Usenet groups with Thai casino adverts is useless.

So what do you believe is "the point" of all the current spam?

That's a serious question - if you believe it is hoping that someone reads a particular spam post
and sees some online betting web site link and thinks "aha, I was just thinking about doing some
online gambling, and as luck has it I've just come across a link. I might as well use that one!"
then indeed the spammers would be worse than amateurs - they'd be idiots, and nobody would pay them
for that! :)

So I'll suggest another reason: the intent of the spam is to pervert the Google search weighting
algorithms in an attempt to move particular sites up the rankings, aiming at an ideal outcome of
appearing on the first page of a search. Individuals have been claiming to be able to do this for
almost as long as search engines like Google have become financially important to buisnesses, and it
seems 100% plausible to me that it can be done - of course you would need to have a good
understanding of how Google rankings work [which I don't!], but then you exploit that knowledge to
"trick" Google into thinking particular sites are more popular than they really are. Probably it
would involve injecting document for Google to scan (Usenet articles?) containing lots of mentions
of the keywords of interest in association with links of interest. It wouldn't be particularly
relevant what human readers made of those documents.

So an indicator of this going on might be articles consisting primarily of long lists of links to
promoted websites. Like you say, who is going to actually read and absorb such a "silly" list of
links? Perhaps Google ranking algorithms? (I don't know, but that's all I can think of - anyhow,
such lists of links is exactly what 99% of the spam consists of...)

Seems we're on the same page regarding Google needing to fix their account creation process so it is
more expensive in human manpower. While there is no cost using some automated process, banning
users for spamming achieves very little. I can see that Google fixing this isn't going to be
instant, but there's also the route of simply identifying spam on prima facae grounds and blocking
it at entry. Google don't seem to like that approach for some reason. Perhaps they see it as just
escalating the spam war requiring constant investment to keep up with spammers, and Google want a
zero on-going effort (on their part) solution.


Regards,
Mike.

Post by Kaz Kylheku
Before we blame everything on Google, the first step is getting
Microsoft to fix the problem that millions of Windows machines are under
the surreptitious control of bad actors.

I don't blame /everything/ on Google - but this one is most certainly their fault.

[David Brown]

Post by Mike Terry

Post by David Brown

Post by Kaz Kylheku

is not just a GG/Usenet matter.  They need to make it more
time-consuming to open a new google account, involve more user
interaction,

Just not so demanding of time and interaction that it becomes easier to
set up Linux and run tin
Just not that it's easier to install Linux and run tin.

Why would anyone choose to run tin, unless they have been using it for
the last three decades? There are many free Usenet clients available,
for Windows and Linux (and I guess also for Macs). They are not
particularly difficult to install or use, and no one needs to use an
OS that they don't want to use.
Pretty much any human who wants to use GG to access Usenet will
already have a google account - extra hurdles on making new google
accounts won't affect them.  For the tiny proportion that need to make
a new account, it should not be an issue if they have an extra step or
two of captchas, SMS codes, or whatever.

Post by Kaz Kylheku

and put limits on the numbers of new accounts from the same
IP within a short time-frame.

"Same IP" only works against the pure amateurs who do not harness large
numbers of different IP addresses by using botnets or their own IP
blocks.

The spammers are amateurs.  Any professional spammer group would know
perfectly well that flooding technical Usenet groups with Thai casino
adverts is useless.

So what do you believe is "the point" of all the current spam?

I really don't know.

Post by Mike Terry
That's a serious question - if you believe it is hoping that someone
reads a particular spam post and sees some online betting web site link
and thinks "aha, I was just thinking about doing some online gambling,
and as luck has it I've just come across a link.  I might as well use
that one!" then indeed the spammers would be worse than amateurs -
they'd be idiots, and nobody would pay them for that! :)
So I'll suggest another reason:  the intent of the spam is to pervert
the Google search weighting algorithms in an attempt to move particular
sites up the rankings, aiming at an ideal outcome of appearing on the
first page of a search.

That would have made sense with the page ranking algorithms from the
early days of search engines, but not now - mass spamming of links and
adverts does not boost your ratings on google. But you could be on to
something here - perhaps the spammers don't understand the page ranking
systems and /think/ that it will boost them, or perhaps it still works
on some less sophisticated search engines (there are many used around
the world - google is not dominant everywhere).

Post by Mike Terry
  Individuals have been claiming to be able to do
this for almost as long as search engines like Google have become
financially important to buisnesses, and it seems 100% plausible to me
that it can be done

Nah - there is no need to be able to provide any results in order to
/claim/ you can boost rankings. The ones that actually work are simply
buying sponsored phrases at google, and charging people more than google
charges them.

Post by Mike Terry
- of course you would need to have a good
understanding of how Google rankings work [which I don't!], but then you
exploit that knowledge to "trick" Google into thinking particular sites
are more popular than they really are.  Probably it would involve
injecting document for Google to scan (Usenet articles?) containing lots
of mentions of the keywords of interest in association with links of
interest.  It wouldn't be particularly relevant what human readers made
of those documents.
So an indicator of this going on might be articles consisting primarily
of long lists of links to promoted websites.  Like you say, who is going
to actually read and absorb such a "silly" list of links?  Perhaps
Google ranking algorithms?  (I don't know, but that's all I can think of
- anyhow, such lists of links is exactly what 99% of the spam consists
of...)

I don't think that would actually work at all, but I can't be sure (I am
not privy to the details of google's algorithms). And certainly if the
spammers believe this would work (whether or not it /actually/ works),
it would be a rational reason for targetting Usenet groups. However, I
am still inclined to suspect that this is all either a mistake, an
unintentional side-effect (with Usenet posts instead of email posts), or
a spamming subcontracter scamming a spamming customer.

Post by Mike Terry
Seems we're on the same page regarding Google needing to fix their
account creation process so it is more expensive in human manpower.
While there is no cost using some automated process, banning users for
spamming achieves very little.  I can see that Google fixing this isn't
going to be instant, but there's also the route of simply identifying
spam on prima facae grounds and blocking it at entry.  Google don't seem
to like that approach for some reason.  Perhaps they see it as just
escalating the spam war requiring constant investment to keep up with
spammers, and Google want a zero on-going effort (on their part) solution.

Maybe google gets advertising revenue from the websites, and so doesn't
mind the spam?

[James Kuyper]

On 11/20/23 07:33, David Brown wrote:
...

The spammers are amateurs. Any professional spammer group would know
perfectly well that flooding technical Usenet groups with Thai casino
adverts is useless.

I did a search across all groups for the "Subject:" header from the most
recent Thai spam still surviving on comp.lang.c. The only other places
that message was posted to were comp.lang.fortran and comp.cad.cadence.

I could understand a poorly targeted campaign accidentally hitting an
inappropriate target. However, it appears that they are deliberately
targeting a small number of newsgroups that are all irrelevant to the
nominal subject of their messages. I don't know what they're trying to
achieve, but I suspect that advertising a Thai gambling website is
merely a tool, not the actual objective. Depending upon what their
actual objective is, this might actually be a smart strategy.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <ujfjn2$ae10$***@dont-email.me>,
David Brown <***@hesbynett.no> wrote:
...

Post by David Brown

Post by Kaz Kylheku
Just not so demanding of time and interaction that it becomes easier to
set up Linux and run tin
Just not that it's easier to install Linux and run tin.

Why would anyone choose to run tin, unless they have been using it for
the last three decades? There are many free Usenet clients available,
for Windows and Linux (and I guess also for Macs). They are not
particularly difficult to install or use, and no one needs to use an OS
that they don't want to use.

I think you misunderstood his point. The point is that it is too easy
(currently) to automate the process of signing up with Google. This makes
it easy to mass-spam the newsgroups.

The whole point of his post is that we want it to be more difficult to
automate the process of signing up with Google. But there is a limit as to
how far to go on this road, since at some point (if you keep making it
harder and harder to sign up for Google), it becomes easier (for the
spammer/automater) to use some other newsreader (such as tin).

Got it now?

Post by David Brown
The spammers are amateurs. Any professional spammer group would know
perfectly well that flooding technical Usenet groups with Thai casino
adverts is useless.

As another poster has suggested, I think something more nefarious is going
on. We should not assume that this is just another instance of the usual
"some poor schmuck in some god-forsaken third world shithole trying
desperately to make a few bucks so that they don't have to spend their
lives in grinding poverty" case.

In fact, I think Google is somehow in on it - i.e., from their POV, this
mess is a feature, not a bug. I make no assertion as to the details of
this, and I don't think we do ourselves any favors speculating about it.

Post by David Brown

Post by Kaz Kylheku
Before we blame everything on Google, the first step is getting
Microsoft to fix the problem that millions of Windows machines are under
the surreptitious control of bad actors.

I don't blame /everything/ on Google - but this one is most certainly
their fault.

Just to be clear, my underlying suggestion that I want Google to ban (i.e.,
make read-only) all the newsgroups is obviously a "not optimal, but perhaps
practical" sort of solution. They either can't or won't actually fix the
problem, so getting them out of the mess is the best we can hope for.

By the way, actually when you think about it, the idea of Google making
newsgroups read-only might actually be a good long-term solution. That
would allow newcomers (which as the other poster notes, we need to have a
steady stream of) to sample the wares w/o being able to post. They would
be encouraged to look around, decide they like it, then be instructed on
how to get setup with a real newsreader and news server. Works for
everybody!

[David Brown]

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by David Brown

Post by Kaz Kylheku
Just not so demanding of time and interaction that it becomes easier to
set up Linux and run tin
Just not that it's easier to install Linux and run tin.

Why would anyone choose to run tin, unless they have been using it for
the last three decades? There are many free Usenet clients available,
for Windows and Linux (and I guess also for Macs). They are not
particularly difficult to install or use, and no one needs to use an OS
that they don't want to use.

I think you misunderstood his point.

Perhaps.

Post by Kenny McCormack
The point is that it is too easy
(currently) to automate the process of signing up with Google. This makes
it easy to mass-spam the newsgroups.

Yes, that's what I wrote.

Post by Kenny McCormack
The whole point of his post is that we want it to be more difficult to
automate the process of signing up with Google. But there is a limit as to
how far to go on this road, since at some point (if you keep making it
harder and harder to sign up for Google), it becomes easier (for the
spammer/automater) to use some other newsreader (such as tin).
Got it now?

It is already extremely easy to use a newsreader (other than tin). But
it typically involves a few google searches to find a free server :-)

Fair enough, however - I now see the point of Mike's post.

I don't think Google really see GG as a major part of their services.
They probably like having the Usenet archives, because they like all
sorts of information, but they certainly don't put much effort into
caring for the GG interface. It would take very little to make it much
more attractive to Usenet regulars, if they were interested in competing
for users.

Post by Kenny McCormack

Post by David Brown
The spammers are amateurs. Any professional spammer group would know
perfectly well that flooding technical Usenet groups with Thai casino
adverts is useless.

As another poster has suggested, I think something more nefarious is going
on. We should not assume that this is just another instance of the usual
"some poor schmuck in some god-forsaken third world shithole trying
desperately to make a few bucks so that they don't have to spend their
lives in grinding poverty" case.

I am assuming incompetence or accident until I have reason to believe
there is a cunning conspiracy here. I am not ruling out something
intentional and evil, but I haven't yet seen convincing evidence. (I'm
also not sure it really matters very much - it makes no difference to
how annoying it is, or how little we can do about it.)

Post by Kenny McCormack
In fact, I think Google is somehow in on it - i.e., from their POV, this
mess is a feature, not a bug. I make no assertion as to the details of
this, and I don't think we do ourselves any favors speculating about it.

Post by David Brown

Post by Kaz Kylheku
Before we blame everything on Google, the first step is getting
Microsoft to fix the problem that millions of Windows machines are under
the surreptitious control of bad actors.

I don't blame /everything/ on Google - but this one is most certainly
their fault.

Just to be clear, my underlying suggestion that I want Google to ban (i.e.,
make read-only) all the newsgroups is obviously a "not optimal, but perhaps
practical" sort of solution. They either can't or won't actually fix the
problem, so getting them out of the mess is the best we can hope for.

Agreed.

Post by Kenny McCormack
By the way, actually when you think about it, the idea of Google making
newsgroups read-only might actually be a good long-term solution. That
would allow newcomers (which as the other poster notes, we need to have a
steady stream of) to sample the wares w/o being able to post. They would
be encouraged to look around, decide they like it, then be instructed on
how to get setup with a real newsreader and news server. Works for
everybody!

Even better would be to combine this with a decent web interface to
Usenet from someone other than Google (since Google can't seem to do it
properly). While many people (including me) find real newsreaders much
better than any web interface would be, there are still legitimate uses
for some people to use web interfaces.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <ujijeg$sq9h$***@dont-email.me>,
David Brown <***@hesbynett.no> wrote:
...

Post by David Brown
Even better would be to combine this with a decent web interface to
Usenet from someone other than Google (since Google can't seem to do it
properly). While many people (including me) find real newsreaders much
better than any web interface would be, there are still legitimate uses
for some people to use web interfaces.

Just out of curiosity, is there any advantage to a "web interface" (e.g.,
GG) vs a GUI (Windows/Mac/whatever) newsreader (Thunderbird, Claws, Forte,
etc) ? Isn't it pretty much the same thing?

(Of course, I understand the difference "under the hood", but I'm talking
here about what the typical naive user sees and understands)

[Richard Damon]

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by David Brown
Even better would be to combine this with a decent web interface to
Usenet from someone other than Google (since Google can't seem to do it
properly). While many people (including me) find real newsreaders much
better than any web interface would be, there are still legitimate uses
for some people to use web interfaces.

Just out of curiosity, is there any advantage to a "web interface" (e.g.,
GG) vs a GUI (Windows/Mac/whatever) newsreader (Thunderbird, Claws, Forte,
etc) ? Isn't it pretty much the same thing?
(Of course, I understand the difference "under the hood", but I'm talking
here about what the typical naive user sees and understands)

One advantage is it doesn't need to be "installed" or "updated" since it
doesn't actually live on the users computers.

It also automatically get shared with all your "devices", even if they
are using different operating systems. The programs you listed won't
work on a Phone or Tablet (at least not any of the popular ones), so
wouldn't be usable by a person who is largely "mobile".

[Michael S]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 11:49:02 -0500

Post by Richard Damon

Post by Kenny McCormack
Just out of curiosity, is there any advantage to a "web interface"
(e.g., GG) vs a GUI (Windows/Mac/whatever) newsreader (Thunderbird,
Claws, Forte, etc) ? Isn't it pretty much the same thing?
(Of course, I understand the difference "under the hood", but I'm
talking here about what the typical naive user sees and understands)

One advantage is it doesn't need to be "installed" or "updated" since
it doesn't actually live on the users computers.
It also automatically get shared with all your "devices", even if
they are using different operating systems. The programs you listed
won't work on a Phone or Tablet (at least not any of the popular
ones), so wouldn't be usable by a person who is largely "mobile".

More so, "device" or computer does not even have to be yours.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by David Brown
Even better would be to combine this with a decent web interface to
Usenet from someone other than Google (since Google can't seem to do it
properly). While many people (including me) find real newsreaders much
better than any web interface would be, there are still legitimate uses
for some people to use web interfaces.

Just out of curiosity, is there any advantage to a "web interface" (e.g.,
GG) vs a GUI (Windows/Mac/whatever) newsreader (Thunderbird, Claws, Forte,
etc) ? Isn't it pretty much the same thing?

Yes. A web interface can be often used when the outbound NNTP port is
blocked, for instance.

[Michael S]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 16:49:34 GMT

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Post by David Brown
Even better would be to combine this with a decent web interface to
Usenet from someone other than Google (since Google can't seem to
do it properly). While many people (including me) find real
newsreaders much better than any web interface would be, there are
still legitimate uses for some people to use web interfaces.

Just out of curiosity, is there any advantage to a "web interface"
(e.g., GG) vs a GUI (Windows/Mac/whatever) newsreader (Thunderbird,
Claws, Forte, etc) ? Isn't it pretty much the same thing?

Yes. A web interface can be often used when the outbound NNTP port
is blocked, for instance.

eternal-september.org can serve via HTTP port.

[Keith Thompson]

David Brown <***@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]

Post by David Brown
I don't think Google really see GG as a major part of their
services. They probably like having the Usenet archives, because they
like all sorts of information, but they certainly don't put much
effort into caring for the GG interface. It would take very little
to make it much more attractive to Usenet regulars, if they were
interested in competing for users.

[...]

For example, Google could set up an NNTP server. But it's hard to
see how that would make money for them, and Google is not a charity.
(Possibly they could insert unobtrusive ads into the NNTP feed, but
the audience likely isn't big enough for that to be worthwhile.)

[Michael S]

Post by David Brown
Even better would be to combine this with a decent web interface to
Usenet from someone other than Google (since Google can't seem to do
it properly). While many people (including me) find real newsreaders
much better than any web interface would be, there are still
legitimate uses for some people to use web interfaces.

That's what https://www.novabbs.com/devel/ is.
Not the whole usenet, not even a major part of it, but most groups that
I am interested in are there.
By chance comp.editors that was mentioned in original post of this topic
is not there.
I am afraid that sooner rather than later spammers will find this
particular portal. I don't think that they will be able to spam through
it, but in attempts to do it they could easily degrade the quality of
service.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Post by Kenny McCormack
The good news: The spam problem (both the so-called "Thai spam" and the
"mushroom spam") is gone from clc and clc++, because Google has (for
reasons of its own) banned both groups.

Afaict, they made them read only. In the past, they actually tried to
ban them wrt reads and writes. Damn it.

Post by Kenny McCormack
What's funny about this is that
normally people on these groups would be p*ssed off at Google for banning
them, but in this instance, it is a happy coincidence that it stops the
spam. So, we're good with it.
The bad news is that it is still alive and well in many of the other
groups. Right now, comp.editors is getting slammed - about 1 spam per
minute, 24/7.
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all
newsgroups, not just these 2?

[Japanese Spammer Here]

Post by Kenny McCormack
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all
newsgroups, not just these 2?

Yes just keep posting more spam using google Groups and they will ban as
soon as they come to know of them. Now you can't buy your drugs anymore! Shame on you.

[The Doctor]

Post by Japanese Spammer Here

Post by Kenny McCormack
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all
newsgroups, not just these 2?

Yes just keep posting more spam using google Groups and they will ban as
soon as they come to know of them. Now you can't buy your drugs anymore! Shame on you.

LOL!
Still GG is banned on this node!

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Kenny McCormack
The good news: The spam problem (both the so-called "Thai spam" and the
"mushroom spam") is gone from clc and clc++, because Google has (for
reasons of its own) banned both groups. What's funny about this is that
normally people on these groups would be p*ssed off at Google for banning
them, but in this instance, it is a happy coincidence that it stops the
spam. So, we're good with it.
The bad news is that it is still alive and well in many of the other
groups. Right now, comp.editors is getting slammed - about 1 spam per
minute, 24/7.
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all
newsgroups, not just these 2?

Ray Banana (E-S admin) blocked a back door that somebody had installed
this morning that GG spam was coming through. He may have gotten the
rest of it. The spammers will be looking for more back doors though.

Lynn

[DFS]

Post by Kenny McCormack
The good news: The spam problem (both the so-called "Thai spam" and the
"mushroom spam") is gone from clc and clc++, because Google has (for
reasons of its own) banned both groups. What's funny about this is that
normally people on these groups would be p*ssed off at Google for banning
them, but in this instance, it is a happy coincidence that it stops the
spam. So, we're good with it.
The bad news is that it is still alive and well in many of the other
groups. Right now, comp.editors is getting slammed - about 1 spam per
minute, 24/7.
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all
newsgroups, not just these 2?

"Effective Feb 15 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet
content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content
from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical
data will still be supported as it is done today."

[olcott]

Post by DFS

Post by Kenny McCormack
The good news: The spam problem (both the so-called "Thai spam" and the
"mushroom spam") is gone from clc and clc++, because Google has (for
reasons of its own) banned both groups.  What's funny about this is that
normally people on these groups would be p*ssed off at Google for banning
them, but in this instance, it is a happy coincidence that it stops the
spam.  So, we're good with it.
The bad news is that it is still alive and well in many of the other
groups.  Right now, comp.editors is getting slammed - about 1 spam per
minute, 24/7.
So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all
newsgroups, not just these 2?

"Effective Feb 15 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet
content.  Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content
from Usenet peers will not appear.  Viewing and searching of historical
data will still be supported as it is done today."

No new content from any source what-so-ever seems worse.

[Tom Furie]

Post by olcott

Post by DFS
"Effective Feb 15 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content.  Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear.  Viewing and searching of
historical data will still be supported as it is done today."

No new content from any source what-so-ever seems worse.

Google Groups will still exist, usenet will still exist. Google are
simply closing the gg<->usenet gateway. Frankly, it's likely to be a
relief to many usenet admins. If you access usenet via Google Groups,
you simply have to find an alternate route, of which there are many.

[olcott]

Post by Tom Furie

Post by olcott

Post by DFS
"Effective Feb 15 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content.  Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear.  Viewing and searching of
historical data will still be supported as it is done today."

No new content from any source what-so-ever seems worse.

Google Groups will still exist, usenet will still exist. Google are
simply closing the gg<->usenet gateway. Frankly, it's likely to be a
relief to many usenet admins. If you access usenet via Google Groups,
you simply have to find an alternate route, of which there are many.

This means that there will no longer be any way that everyone can see
every USENET message. 90% of the population doesn't even know what
USENET is thus cannot find and install a newsreader and join a USENET
provider.

[yeti]

Post by olcott
This means that there will no longer be any way that everyone can see
every USENET message.

https://comp.lang.c.narkive.com/n2nNrNEq/comp-lang-c-more-musings-on-the-spam-problem#post26

Post by olcott
90% of the population doesn't even know what USENET is thus cannot
find and install a newsreader and join a USENET provider.

Life will find a way!

But if they don't ask, we will not know who needs/wants which help.

[olcott]

Post by yeti

Post by olcott
This means that there will no longer be any way that everyone can see
every USENET message.

https://comp.lang.c.narkive.com/n2nNrNEq/comp-lang-c-more-musings-on-the-spam-problem#post26

Post by olcott
90% of the population doesn't even know what USENET is thus cannot
find and install a newsreader and join a USENET provider.

Life will find a way!
But if they don't ask, we will not know who needs/wants which help.

I need a consistent web interface that can access
and USENET message / conversation. Google groups
is the only one that I am aware of. When Google
groups stops being updated this will prevent
access to new messages by their web interface.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by olcott

Post by yeti

Post by olcott
This means that there will no longer be any way that everyone can see
every USENET message.

https://comp.lang.c.narkive.com/n2nNrNEq/comp-lang-c-more-musings-on-the-spam-problem#post26

Post by olcott
90% of the population doesn't even know what USENET is thus cannot
find and install a newsreader and join a USENET provider.

Life will find a way!
But if they don't ask, we will not know who needs/wants which help.

I need a consistent web interface that can access
and USENET message / conversation. Google groups
is the only one that I am aware of. When Google
groups stops being updated this will prevent
access to new messages by their web interface.

https://www.easynews.com/features/

[olcott]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by olcott

Post by yeti

Post by olcott
This means that there will no longer be any way that everyone can see
every USENET message.

https://comp.lang.c.narkive.com/n2nNrNEq/comp-lang-c-more-musings-on-the-spam-problem#post26

Post by olcott
90% of the population doesn't even know what USENET is thus cannot
find and install a newsreader and join a USENET provider.

Life will find a way!
But if they don't ask, we will not know who needs/wants which help.

I need a consistent web interface that can access
and USENET message / conversation. Google groups
is the only one that I am aware of. When Google
groups stops being updated this will prevent
access to new messages by their web interface.

https://www.easynews.com/features/

I need a way that users can click on a link and get to my
USENET post. Google Groups has always been my way.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by olcott

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by olcott

Post by yeti

Post by olcott
This means that there will no longer be any way that everyone can see
every USENET message.

https://comp.lang.c.narkive.com/n2nNrNEq/comp-lang-c-more-musings-on-the-spam-problem#post26

Post by olcott
90% of the population doesn't even know what USENET is thus cannot
find and install a newsreader and join a USENET provider.

Life will find a way!
But if they don't ask, we will not know who needs/wants which help.

I need a consistent web interface that can access
and USENET message / conversation. Google groups
is the only one that I am aware of. When Google
groups stops being updated this will prevent
access to new messages by their web interface.

https://www.easynews.com/features/

I need a way that users can click on a link and get to my
USENET post. Google Groups has always been my way.

I suspect most of us will be happier if you don't find
a new way...

[olcott]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by olcott

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by olcott

Post by yeti

Post by olcott
This means that there will no longer be any way that everyone can see
every USENET message.

https://comp.lang.c.narkive.com/n2nNrNEq/comp-lang-c-more-musings-on-the-spam-problem#post26

Post by olcott
90% of the population doesn't even know what USENET is thus cannot
find and install a newsreader and join a USENET provider.

Life will find a way!
But if they don't ask, we will not know who needs/wants which help.

I need a consistent web interface that can access
and USENET message / conversation. Google groups
is the only one that I am aware of. When Google
groups stops being updated this will prevent
access to new messages by their web interface.

https://www.easynews.com/features/

I need a way that users can click on a link and get to my
USENET post. Google Groups has always been my way.

I suspect most of us will be happier if you don't find
a new way...

The same thing effects everyone.
With the changes no one can ever refer anyone to a USENET post.

[Richard Harnden]

Post by olcott
The same thing effects everyone.
With the changes no one can ever refer anyone to a USENET post.

Er, Message-ID?

[tTh]

Post by Richard Harnden

Post by olcott
The same thing effects everyone.
With the changes no one can ever refer anyone to a USENET post.

Er, Message-ID?

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=170268633500

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by olcott

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by olcott

Post by yeti

Post by olcott
This means that there will no longer be any way that everyone can see
every USENET message.

https://comp.lang.c.narkive.com/n2nNrNEq/comp-lang-c-more-musings-on-the-spam-problem#post26

Post by olcott
90% of the population doesn't even know what USENET is thus cannot
find and install a newsreader and join a USENET provider.

Life will find a way!
But if they don't ask, we will not know who needs/wants which help.

I need a consistent web interface that can access
and USENET message / conversation. Google groups
is the only one that I am aware of. When Google
groups stops being updated this will prevent
access to new messages by their web interface.

https://www.easynews.com/features/

I need a way that users can click on a link and get to my
USENET post. Google Groups has always been my way.

I suspect most of us will be happier if you don't find
a new way...

No shit.

[Julieta Shem]

yeti <***@tilde.institute> writes:

[...]

Post by yeti

Post by olcott
90% of the population doesn't even know what USENET is thus cannot
find and install a newsreader and join a USENET provider.

Life will find a way!

That's right. If the USENET shrinks quite a lot, say, it will also be
easy to maintain it, so we can likely do it all ourselves. People will
discover us when they need us. Right now, they're enjoying themselves.
When a crisis bursts out, they'll suddenly say --- omg, we need
something with properties USENET(1), USENET(2), ..., USENET(n). That's
when they'll discover it right under their noses.

We need to consider as well that perhaps the USENET can only function
while small. In the past, the USENET was filled with researchers and
skilled people. Where are they now? They could come back now that
Google is finally going away. Let's wait.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Post by Julieta Shem
[...]

Post by yeti

Post by olcott
90% of the population doesn't even know what USENET is thus cannot
find and install a newsreader and join a USENET provider.

Life will find a way!

That's right. If the USENET shrinks quite a lot, say, it will also be
easy to maintain it, so we can likely do it all ourselves. People will
discover us when they need us. Right now, they're enjoying themselves.
When a crisis bursts out, they'll suddenly say --- omg, we need
something with properties USENET(1), USENET(2), ..., USENET(n). That's
when they'll discover it right under their noses.
We need to consider as well that perhaps the USENET can only function
while small. In the past, the USENET was filled with researchers and
skilled people. Where are they now? They could come back now that
Google is finally going away. Let's wait.

Most interesting thoughts indeed! :^)

[Janis Papanagnou]

[...] In the past, the USENET was filled with researchers and
skilled people. Where are they now?

In StackExchange and StackOverflow and in various web-based
specific forums.

There are still a lot of enthusiastic experts here in Usenet,
though. But I don't think that it will stay that way; time
works against it. - The newer generations would need to jump
on the bandwagon. Do they?

They could come back now that
Google is finally going away. Let's wait.

Don't count on that. :-) And I don't think that waiting will
turn anything to good account.

One thing to also consider is that ISPs have shut down their
NNTP servers/services; happened to me twice. Can we count on
the persistence of non-commercial free Usenet services?

Janis