Marco Moock wrote:

> schrieb Wally J:
>
>> the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?,
>> some?) newsgroups is the narkive
>
> Sadly, there is no list of all groups hosted there.

Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.

Am 15.12.2023 um 20:43:07 Uhr schrieb Andy Burns:

> Marco Moock wrote:
>
> > schrieb Wally J:
> >
> >> the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?,
> >> some?) newsgroups is the narkive
> >
> > Sadly, there is no list of all groups hosted there.
>
> Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.

Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>

In article <ulid3g$ni1$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/15/23 10:11, The Doctor wrote:
>> Hence incompetence.
>
>Lack of caring and incompetence are two very different things.
>
>

And then you have politicians.

>
>--
>Grant. . . .

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

Marco Moock wrote:

> schrieb Andy Burns:
>
>> Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.
>
> Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>

I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> Their excuse is completely bogus though,
>
> No, it's not. It's not an excuse either. It's a reason. The reason
> can be shortened to the last word.

Hmmm... well... ah... um... er... ok. I don't disagree with you as I never
disagree with anyone (no matter who it is) who says something reasonable.

> They just fail to tell the whole truth -- that the vast majority of the
> spam was originating from them -- and nothing but the truth -- the rest
> of the fluff that they padded their statement with.

OK. Again. I can't disagree. I never disagree with a fact.
Only fools do that. (That's why they're fools after all.)
> The fact that they are not discontinuing Google Groups supports that
> people still use (news)groups to communicate. So any comment about
> newer social media is a lie.

The part about social media is what got me on flaming Baby Cuomo's assault
on the binary Usenet newsgroups - where he "conveniently forgot" that
almost all of us post on the text-only newsgroups which have no porn.

What irked me was AT&T (who was my cable supplier at that time) dropped
Usenet piggybacking on Cuomo's lies - which was an introduction to lies^2.

> But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
> "spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.

Heh heh heh... yeah. The spam was originating from Google after all. :)

What still tells me there's more to the story than we know is that it's
trivial (IMHO) for Google to filter out the spam originating from their
servers.

Even I could do that. And I don't know a damn thing about Google's servers.
What's so hard about filtering their own users' Google-Groups-Usenet posts
when they do effective filtering with their email servers already?

Something very critical is missing from the information we're faced with.
> This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
> times before.

I worked for a decade alongside two of the smartest people in the world who
ended up working for Google on their search engine team, where even They
were impressed with how sophisticated the "normal" Google search was.

If you know them, I'll say their initials, where both worked in the Silicon
Valley with me, one of whom is D.G. and the other B.A. if you know them.

Also W.T. worked at Google who has argued with me many times that they're
not stupid (just like you argue here) but that they're told what to code.
--
The problem with knowing a lot is others know a lot - just different stuff.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote

>>> Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.
>>
>> Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>
>
> I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.

I sent him an email when I first saw this email address, oh, about an hour
or so ago - so let me check for a bounceback... looks good. No return.

I asked David to look at this thread (which, let's be clear to the
naysayers, I conveniently referenced by URL) to see if he could help out.
I even suggested some of you guys might offer him improvement advice.

Now that you reminded us of the rocksolid URL, we have two search engines
to test out to see if either works as we would have wanted dejagoogle to.

<https://news.software.nntp.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>
and
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=news.software.nntp
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=news.admin.peering
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
which redirects to:
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.software.nntp>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.peering>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

Note that I only realized the redirect when I saw this in my old notes.
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=rocksolid.shared.helpdesk>
--
Usenet is a team of intelligent experienced people who help each other out.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:43:52 -0600
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:

> On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:
> > doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> >> They are covering their incompetence!
> >
> > And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being
> > the ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on
> > others while being on their own way out.
> >
> > Greetings
> > Marc
>
> I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people
> away from pursuing Usenet.

We need to reach out to those legitimate users that are using Google
Groups and offer them alternative access.

--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23

Nigel Reed <sysop@endofthelinebbs.com> wrote

> We need to reach out to those legitimate users that are using Google
> Groups and offer them alternative access.

The good news is there are a plethora of free news servers they can employ.
<http://groups.google.com/g/alt.free.newsservers>
<https://alt.free.newsservers.narkive.com>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=alt.free.newsservers>
--
Note I wouldn't recommend paganini for new users but the rest work well.

On 12/15/23 12:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>>> And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
>>> ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
>>> while being on their own way out.
>
>> I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away
>>from pursuing Usenet.
>
> Somehow Usenet will survive without the people who refuse to try Usenet
> due to believing Google's lies.

Yes, but it could still have SOME impact on new users.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 12/15/23 16:47, Wally J wrote:
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote
>> But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
>> "spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.
>
> Heh heh heh... yeah. The spam was originating from Google after all. :)
>
> What still tells me there's more to the story than we know is that it's
> trivial (IMHO) for Google to filter out the spam originating from their
> servers.
>
> Even I could do that. And I don't know a damn thing about Google's servers.
> What's so hard about filtering their own users' Google-Groups-Usenet posts
> when they do effective filtering with their email servers already?
>
> Something very critical is missing from the information we're faced with.
>
>> This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
>> times before.
>
> I worked for a decade alongside two of the smartest people in the world who
> ended up working for Google on their search engine team, where even They
> were impressed with how sophisticated the "normal" Google search was.
>
> If you know them, I'll say their initials, where both worked in the Silicon
> Valley with me, one of whom is D.G. and the other B.A. if you know them.
>
> Also W.T. worked at Google who has argued with me many times that they're
> not stupid (just like you argue here) but that they're told what to code.

My guess is either they were looking for an excuse to shut down the
service (maybe to save server space?), throwing a bone to get us to stop
complaining, or they legitimately forgot about the gateway.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 12/15/23 21:39, candycanearter07 wrote:
> My guess is either they were looking for an excuse to shut down the
> service (maybe to save server space?),

Maybe.

Though Google has not needed an excuse to do things in the past. Quite
the contrary, they do things that have upset people to the point of an
anti-excuse / reason to keep things.

> throwing a bone to get us to stop complaining,

I doubt that.

> or they legitimately forgot about the gateway.

I highly doubt it.

I saw hints of them pondering shutting down the Google Groups Usenet
gateway around when the new Mozilla Firefox / Thunderbird and Windows 11
newsgroups became a thing.

The shutdown has been coming.

The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

--
Grant. . . .

Am 15.12.2023 um 21:45:15 Uhr schrieb Andy Burns:

> Marco Moock wrote:
>
> > schrieb Andy Burns:
> >
> >> Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer
> >> groups.
> >
> > Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>
>
> I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.

It worked some weeks ago.

Marco Moock wrote:

> schrieb Andy Burns:
>
>> Marco Moock wrote:
>>
>>> Davide Cavion <davide@narkive.com>
>>
>> I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.
>
> It worked some weeks ago.

Since Davide has surfaced in n.a.peering, I've replied to him there.

In article <uljdsc$7en$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/15/23 21:39, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> My guess is either they were looking for an excuse to shut down the
>> service (maybe to save server space?),
>
>Maybe.
>
>Though Google has not needed an excuse to do things in the past. Quite
>the contrary, they do things that have upset people to the point of an
>anti-excuse / reason to keep things.
>
>> throwing a bone to get us to stop complaining,
>
>I doubt that.
>
>> or they legitimately forgot about the gateway.
>
>I highly doubt it.
>
>I saw hints of them pondering shutting down the Google Groups Usenet
>gateway around when the new Mozilla Firefox / Thunderbird and Windows 11
>newsgroups became a thing.
>
>The shutdown has been coming.
>
>The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.
>
>

After a year's worth of complaints ...

>
>--
>Grant. . . .

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <uljdsc$7en$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> >
> > The shutdown has been coming.
> >
> > The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.
>
> After a year's worth of complaints ...

Just a year?!

The Google Groups spamflood of Usenet might have become a bigger
issue in recent months but people have been complaining about Google
Groups and the people who use it to post to Usenet for years.

Blinky the Shark might be gone but I'm sure Lee is up there smiling
somewhere...

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

> The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

I have no evidence of this circumstantial claim based on timing alone, but
I suspect maybe Google killed 'something' in preparation for this shutdown,
which is what allowed all the google-based spam to suddenly flood the ngs.

What that 'something' might have possibly been, I cannot hope to say -
other than it may have been what opened the previously-closed floodgates.

As such, it may have been the prelude that we saw in the past few weeks...

Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>
> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
> them to.

I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
longer offered.

>
> I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in
> preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
> did recently.

The amount of spam seems to have been increasing daily for about two
years now. I see this not only in Usenet.
The bots are becoming more intelligent, for example, through AI.

> Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement
> wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
> the spam was no longer detected and prevented.

I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a
short time.

--
Best regards,
Timo

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
> >
> > I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
> > them to.
>
> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
> longer offered.

["service" referring to googlegroups]

Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
but derive any income whatsoever.

In article <KE=TbQZu1TymBR1gH@bongo-ra.co>,
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
>Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>> >
>> > I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>> > them to.
>>
>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>> longer offered.
>
>["service" referring to googlegroups]
>
>Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
>how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
>but derive any income whatsoever.

No Google Ads for me!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

On 12/23/23 19:07, Timo wrote:
> I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a
> short time.

I agree.

However that is predicated by management allowing the programmers to do so.

I believe this was more deliberate and business level than it was
anything else.

--
Grant. . . .

In article <um9u9h$l2i$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/23/23 19:07, Timo wrote:
>> I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a
>> short time.
>
>I agree.
>
>However that is predicated by management allowing the programmers to do so.
>
>I believe this was more deliberate and business level than it was
>anything else.
>
>

Debatable tothe end. Let the business students make a MAsters and PH.D.
Thesis out of this!

>
>--
>Grant. . . .

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
> Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>>>
>>> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>>> them to.
>>
>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>> longer offered.
>
> ["service" referring to googlegroups]
>
> Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
> but derive any income whatsoever.

To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

In article <uma9j9$2nk73$5@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
>> Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>>>> them to.
>>>
>>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>>> longer offered.
>>
>> ["service" referring to googlegroups]
>>
>> Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
>> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
>> but derive any income whatsoever.
>
>To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
>survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..

They needed to maintain good administration!!

>--
>user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote:
> In article <uma9j9$2nk73$5@dont-email.me>,
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
>>> Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>>>>> them to.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>>>> longer offered.
>>>
>>> ["service" referring to googlegroups]
>>>
>>> Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
>>> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
>>> but derive any income whatsoever.
>>
>> To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
>> survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
>
> They needed to maintain good administration!!
>
>> --
>> user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>>
>
>

How much it would it have cost Google to have detailed one programmer to
handle this stuff? Google Groups is revenue-negative on its own, but
searching is Google's original core business and continuing to carry
access to Usenet - without reams of Thai-language spam - should have
made perfect sense to them.
I'm wondering if that "Usenet is dead" message eminating from PC-rag was
not supplied to the friendly (to Google) journalist by Google as a PR
piece to justify their decision. Google is poorer for having cut
themselves off from that source, but you can't rely on a herd of MBAs to
take a long-term view.

In article <umbnmb$19qm0$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <uma9j9$2nk73$5@dont-email.me>,
>> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
>>>> Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>>>>>> them to.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>>>>> longer offered.
>>>>
>>>> ["service" referring to googlegroups]
>>>>
>>>> Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
>>>> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
>>>> but derive any income whatsoever.
>>>
>>> To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
>>> survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
>>
>> They needed to maintain good administration!!
>>
>>> --
>>> user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>>>
>>
>>
>
>How much it would it have cost Google to have detailed one programmer to
>handle this stuff? Google Groups is revenue-negative on its own, but
>searching is Google's original core business and continuing to carry
>access to Usenet - without reams of Thai-language spam - should have
>made perfect sense to them.
>I'm wondering if that "Usenet is dead" message eminating from PC-rag was
>not supplied to the friendly (to Google) journalist by Google as a PR
>piece to justify their decision. Google is poorer for having cut
>themselves off from that source, but you can't rely on a herd of MBAs to
>take a long-term view.

All are idiots for not supporting a pillar of Internet!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com