Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 11:57:17 -0300
> Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 00:57:41 -0300
>> > Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>> > I don't see any spam on comp.lang.lisp coming from ForteAgent .Can you
>> > give a Message-ID ?
>>
>> That's a good question now because I wonder how I can see all the
>> killfiled posts in Gnus. I wanted them to disappear and they did. Lol.
>> (Found them by saying ``/ O'' to the summary buffer.)
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> Message-ID: <n98nmil844pckn6odmelustau3n29rc7f7@4ax.com>
>> User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 trialware
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>> Looks like a single one, but it's from yesterday, so maybe you just had
>> not received that one yet.
>
> I do most of my reading through news.i2pn2.org which filters most of the
> spam including this one. I got it through a different server. I'm actually
> saving it for the novelty value !

Wow --- thanks for the information. They seem to provide a good (and
free) service.

>> >> A quick look at sci.math reveals the same. But what
>> >> do we make of sci.logic, say? That seems to be a more interesting case.
>> >
>> > I see very little spam on sci.logic .
>>
>> There's isn't precisely spam. The phenomenon there is different. See
>> for instance the thread that begins with <ujgjmu$frm2$1@dont-email.me>.
>
> That's on topic ; low quality perhaps but on topic. The fact that people
> can post even low quality stuff and everyone can decide for themselves
> what to read and what not to read , I consider one of the strengths of
> usenet.

That's right. Besides, we could killfill them all and hang out there
ourselves if wanted to.

>> >> Anyway, I'm going to killfile all G2 altogether and see how it looks.
>>
>> It's working wonders, actually. I'm quite impressed. Thanks very much
>> all of you here for giving them the survival theorems.
>
> Keep in mind that some legitimate posters post on comp.lang.lisp through
> googlegroups .Even a member of the Common Lisp standard committee did that
> but he hasn't posted in a long time.

They should not, though. And I don't mind losing their messages --- I'd
discover them after someone replies to them anyway. In fact, if I ever
get involved in a thread like that, I'd tell them to get a proper news
reader.

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>
>Nothing at all. Why don't USENET administrators deny relaying to
>Google? Perhaps because at least one of them doesn't agree with that?
>Perhaps because Google pays someone to get the messages? Because, look,
>if I were an NNTP administrator, I would not let Google download
>anything from me. :-)

Plenty admins do exactly that. Tell yours to do so. But there are many
sites that have dropped google postings for years.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

> Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>>
>>Nothing at all. Why don't USENET administrators deny relaying to
>>Google? Perhaps because at least one of them doesn't agree with that?
>>Perhaps because Google pays someone to get the messages? Because, look,
>>if I were an NNTP administrator, I would not let Google download
>>anything from me. :-)
>
> Plenty admins do exactly that. Tell yours to do so. But there are many
> sites that have dropped google postings for years.
> --scott

My server is Eternal September's. I went to their website and saw their
mentioning news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. There's a recent there about
this very subject and you're in it. I'd think Eternal September is well
aware of it all way more than I am.

Julieta Shem wrote:

> Scott Dorsey writes:
>
>> Julieta Shem wrote:
>>
>>> Why don't USENET administrators deny relaying to Google?
>>
>> Plenty admins do exactly that. Tell yours to do so.
>
> My server is Eternal September's.

Ray seems determined to filter the spam from googlegroups, rather than
block googlegroups entirely, he's putting a lot of effort into it.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> Julieta Shem wrote:
>
> > Scott Dorsey writes:
> >
> >> Julieta Shem wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why don't USENET administrators deny relaying to Google?
> >>
> >> Plenty admins do exactly that. Tell yours to do so.
> >
> > My server is Eternal September's.
>
> Ray seems determined to filter the spam from googlegroups, rather than
> block googlegroups entirely, he's putting a lot of effort into it.

True, that. It's altruism taken to a high point.
I hope it doesn't prove to be pointless.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator.
My pet rock Gordon just said "Klaatu barada nikto."

Google Groups articles not seen here unless poster is whitelisted.

In article <87wmttqsht.fsf@yaxenu.org>, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>> Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>Nothing at all. Why don't USENET administrators deny relaying to
>>>Google? Perhaps because at least one of them doesn't agree with that?
>>>Perhaps because Google pays someone to get the messages? Because, look,
>>>if I were an NNTP administrator, I would not let Google download
>>>anything from me. :-)
>>
>> Plenty admins do exactly that. Tell yours to do so. But there are many
>> sites that have dropped google postings for years.
>> --scott
>
>My server is Eternal September's. I went to their website and saw their
>mentioning news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. There's a recent there about
>this very subject and you're in it. I'd think Eternal September is well
>aware of it all way more than I am.

Eternal September is doing a pretty good job of filtering the crap, but
they are a large site which has a lot of labour available to manage
filters. You can be sure when a group like comp.protocols.time.ntp which
normally gets one or two posts a month suddenly jumps up to getting three
to ten thousand a day that something spam-related is going on.

Most smaller sites don't have that kind of labour available and are more
likely to just block Google Groups entirely. Many have been doing it for
years, long before the current spam event.

However, with the recent spam attack going on in the past month, there have
been some very interesting advancements in cancellation, with most of the
spam being marked out in nocem messages that have relatively few false
positives. So this is a viable middle road for smaller sites that don't
want to dump all google traffic but which don't have the labour to constantly
monitor traffic.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2023-12-05, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <87wmttqsht.fsf@yaxenu.org>, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>
>>> Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Nothing at all. Why don't USENET administrators deny relaying to
>>>>Google? Perhaps because at least one of them doesn't agree with that?
>>>>Perhaps because Google pays someone to get the messages? Because, look,
>>>>if I were an NNTP administrator, I would not let Google download
>>>>anything from me. :-)
>>>
>>> Plenty admins do exactly that. Tell yours to do so. But there are many
>>> sites that have dropped google postings for years.
>>> --scott
>>
>>My server is Eternal September's. I went to their website and saw their
>>mentioning news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. There's a recent there about
>>this very subject and you're in it. I'd think Eternal September is well
>>aware of it all way more than I am.
>
> Eternal September is doing a pretty good job of filtering the crap, but
> they are a large site which has a lot of labour available to manage
> filters. You can be sure when a group like comp.protocols.time.ntp which

I'm pretty sure Ray is the extent of the e-s "team" ...

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860