Trimming the destinataries to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet only.

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> writes:

> Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote
>
>> I would like to locate any message by message-id, no matter in
>> which group it was posted. Is that a dream?
>
> You didn't mention whether or not you already know the message id.
> If you already know it, what's wrong with the Howard Knight site?
> <http://al.howardknight.net/>

I had never heard of this website. It's asking me for a username and
password, which I don't have. It also presenting a certificate issued
to a different hostname.

> If you don't already know the message id, I'm not sure of any lookup that
> will give it to you - as I don't use the narkives & I think dejagoogle
> stopped archiving the headers a few years ago (as I recall).
> <https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

I do know the message-id. I think it's nice if posts and papers could
reference a USENET article by the message-id and with a click of the
mouse people could look it up on the web or gopher, gemini or something.
Having to mention the group (along) seems undesired.

> How are you going to find the message id if you don't already have the
> article's headers in your possession (e.g., from your news server)?

Someone sends me an e-mail saying --- ``see <message-id> for how X can
be accomplished'' --- and some archive-service could display the message
given the <message-if>. The USENET could be what electronic archives
for scientific papers still can't do. (You read a paper, find a
reference and must still manually go to questionably legal services to
try to find a copy.)

Thanks for the pointers.

Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote
> I'm using news.individual.net and I don't see anything from Google
> Groups here.

Hi Brian,
Your admin appears to be working on the problem as shown here.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw/m/f9PSZkv4AAAJ>

Here's what he said, verbatim.
My apologies to the Individual.net news server admins.

==< cut here >==
We follow the discussion here and are aware of the Google spam problem. We
also have some anti-spam measures for our reader servers. But it is really
easy to find our contact address (news@individual.net) on
https://news.individual.net/

In the past, issuing a UDP� has often not been particularly successful.

Heiko (for Newsmaster-Team of individual.net)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_Death_Penalty

In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> Probably you mean NNTP.

The point was to share a successful outcome, using Bughunters to report a spam
attack on a Google Group having ties to a Google development team. What worked
for that Group might not work for another, but a person could try it. My
suggestion was that spam overrunning comp.mobile.android could be posted on
Bughunters to the attention of the Android development team. The Android team
might be invested enough and in a position to escalate it internally and get it
fixed, just as the Time team did.

(Nothing to do with NTP and NNTP having similar spelling.)

Cheers! Edward

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote

>>Then there's the "you gave X number of articles to the free global
>>Usenet out of the Y total articles therein" where X is significantly
>>smaller than Y and as such you get an infinitesimally small part back,
>>if that.
>
> Yes, precisely.

BTW, on the Android newsgroup some of us are discussing WHY they're doing
all this spam, where not every newsgroup is being spammed, it seems.

These are:
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.internet.wireless>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.microsoft.windows>
<https://groups.google.com/g/uk.telecom.mobile>
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.photo.digital>
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.home.repair>
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
etc.

These are not:
<http://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com>
<http://alt.comp.os.windows-11.narkive.com>
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.ipad>
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone>
etc.

I haven't looked extensively but they don't seem to be spamming groups
(such as the Windows 10 and 11 newsgroups most people post to) which aren't
auto-archived - but that could also be because the Google-to-Usenet portal
might not work for groups that aren't part of the DejaNews archives.

Dunno what they're doing for real, but it's only some newsgroups.
Not all.

On 12/12/23 19:38, Wally J wrote:
> BTW, on the Android newsgroup some of us are discussing WHY they're doing
> all this spam, where not every newsgroup is being spammed, it seems.

I'm of the opinion that it's a bunch of different spam campaigns, likely
by almost as many spammers.

> I haven't looked extensively but they don't seem to be spamming groups
> (such as the Windows 10 and 11 newsgroups most people post to) which aren't
> auto-archived - but that could also be because the Google-to-Usenet portal
> might not work for groups that aren't part of the DejaNews archives.

^DejaNews^Usenet

I know that the newsgroups for Thunderbird / Firefox support and some of
the newer versions of Windows don't have Usenet newsgroups inside of
Google Groups.

In traditional news parlance, Google doesn't carry said newsgroups /
they aren't in Google's active newsgroups file. As such there is
nothing inside of Google Groups that the spammers can post to using the
Google Groups Usenet gateway.

> Dunno what they're doing for real, but it's only some newsgroups.
> Not all.

I don't think I've ever seen a single spam campaign hit all of the
newsgroups that I subscribe to, much less all of the thousands in my
server's active file. All of them are one or few groups and there is no
rime or reason that I'm aware of in their selection of groups.

Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> BTW, on the Android newsgroup some of us are discussing WHY they're doing
>> all this spam, where not every newsgroup is being spammed, it seems.
>
> I'm of the opinion that it's a bunch of different spam campaigns, likely
> by almost as many spammers.
>
>> I haven't looked extensively but they don't seem to be spamming groups
>> (such as the Windows 10 and 11 newsgroups most people post to) which aren't
>> auto-archived - but that could also be because the Google-to-Usenet portal
>> might not work for groups that aren't part of the DejaNews archives.
>
> ^DejaNews^Usenet

I wish we had a name for it but it's like when we talk about unwanted spam.
No matter what name we use, everyone knows what we're talking about.

I call it dejagoogle sometimes.
a. It's a search engine to me
b. And it's a cite reference (better'n a message-ID is anyway)

> I know that the newsgroups for Thunderbird / Firefox support and some of
> the newer versions of Windows don't have Usenet newsgroups inside of
> Google Groups.

Yup. I tried valiantly, as did you, I believe, to get Google to add them to
the auto-archives so that others can run searches to find answers before
they post a question. I failed.
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.software.thunderbird> 404 not found
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.software.firefox> Content unavailable
NOTE: Interesting I got two different errors for those two URIs just now.

We might check for the Google spam on the narkives though.
<http://alt.comp.software.thunderbird.narkive.com> (unsafe)
<http://alt.comp.software.firefox.narkive.com> (unsafe)
But my browser setup won't let me.
> In traditional news parlance, Google doesn't carry said newsgroups /
> they aren't in Google's active newsgroups file. As such there is
> nothing inside of Google Groups that the spammers can post to using the
> Google Groups Usenet gateway.

Yeah. That must be why the Gspammers aren't spamming these Windows ngs.
<http://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com>
<http://alt.comp.os.windows-11.narkive.com>

>> Dunno what they're doing for real, but it's only some newsgroups.
>> Not all.
>
> I don't think I've ever seen a single spam campaign hit all of the
> newsgroups that I subscribe to, much less all of the thousands in my
> server's active file. All of them are one or few groups and there is no
> rime or reason that I'm aware of in their selection of groups.

I've noticed a lot of the spam is in funky characters, which I find odd,
but many also have URLs so they could be phishing attacks for all I know.

The M0VIE spam is particularly repetitive - I suspect they want to get into
search engine results - but I don't know that for a fact. I'm just guessing
as a lot of my tutorials posted to Usenet end up in the first page of hits
from a "normal" www.google.com search - so Usenet _does_ show up there too.

BTW, regarding the message from Individual.net, I was heartened they care.
Anybody have any new datapoints from Giganews & Highwinds admins yet?

On 12/13/23 00:22, Wally J wrote:
> I wish we had a name for it but it's like when we talk about unwanted spam.
> No matter what name we use, everyone knows what we're talking about.

There are (at least) three distinct things in the discussion:

1) The copy of Usenet articles that Deja News had which Google acquired.
2) Usenet as it exists today as a set of newsgroups.
3) The groups in the Google Groups system

#1 is a static and has not changed since acquisition.

#2 is what the people outside of Google use.

#3 is what the people inside of Google use.

#2 and #3 are close and related but are not the same thing.

> Yup. I tried valiantly, as did you, I believe, to get Google to add them to
> the auto-archives so that others can run searches to find answers before
> they post a question. I failed.

I got an authoritative refusal to add the newsgroups from the people
that would do it or authorize me to do it.

> NOTE: Interesting I got two different errors for those two URIs just now.

There could be a number of reasons for that and I wouldn't trust Google
1 mm for each bit making up the NOTE: message.

> Yeah. That must be why the Gspammers aren't spamming these Windows ngs.

They aren't because they can't because the group doesn't exist where the
spammers are originating the spam.

> I've noticed a lot of the spam is in funky characters, which I find odd,
> but many also have URLs so they could be phishing attacks for all I know.

The spam is using Unicode, some are quite literally bells and whistles,
to draw attention or to be funny or cute.

> The M0VIE spam is particularly repetitive - I suspect they want to get into
> search engine results - but I don't know that for a fact. I'm just guessing
> as a lot of my tutorials posted to Usenet end up in the first page of hits
> from a "normal" www.google.com search - so Usenet _does_ show up there too.

I don't think that they are trying to get into web search engines.
After all, most of the operations that I saw were quite questionable in
nature. I think they are simply trying to be the most recent "we have
movie" poster so that they appear most recently in the newsgroup when
someone looks for "what's the most recent movie post?". Quite literally
climbing on top of each other and not caring about the trash they leave
behind them.

> BTW, regarding the message from Individual.net, I was heartened they care.
> Anybody have any new datapoints from Giganews & Highwinds admins yet?

IMHO Individual.net is run by an individual, much like most of the text
only Usenet servers. Both GigaNews and HighWinds are commercial
entities and likely don't care unless one of their paying users complains.

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor wrote on Wed, 13 Dec 2023 09:18:37 -0600 :

>> BTW, regarding the message from Individual.net, I was heartened they care.
>> Anybody have any new datapoints from Giganews & Highwinds admins yet?
>
> IMHO Individual.net is run by an individual, much like most of the text
> only Usenet servers. Both GigaNews and HighWinds are commercial
> entities and likely don't care unless one of their paying users complains.

The 'paying customers' of GigaNews & HighWinds seem to be all spammers. ;->

Thus spake Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
> IMHO Individual.net is run by an individual, much like most of the
> text only Usenet servers.

News.Individual.net is provided by FU (Free University) Berlin, one of three State
Universities in Berlin, Germany. It is run by the IT department (ZEDAT)
of FU University.

HTH

--
Пу́тін — хуйло́
http://www.eternal-september.org

On 12/13/23 09:41, Andrew wrote:
> The 'paying customers' of GigaNews & HighWinds seem to be all spammers. ;->

I question the veracity of that.

I've paid both for service for a short time in the past. Before I stood
up my own news server.

--
Grant. . . .

In article <ulbhfc$sbm$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/12/23 19:38, Wally J wrote:
>> BTW, on the Android newsgroup some of us are discussing WHY they're doing
>> all this spam, where not every newsgroup is being spammed, it seems.
>
>I'm of the opinion that it's a bunch of different spam campaigns, likely
>by almost as many spammers.

If this is the case, and it's possible, first thing is that they are using
the same script to do it. And secondly, they all are dumping stuff with
the intention of being disruptive rather than the intention of gimmicking
search engines. I suspect initially they were trying to get search engine
results up, but at this point they are just intending to be destructive.

This is why I suspect it's more likely to be one spammer, but I am not
positive.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>There are (at least) three distinct things in the discussion:
>
>1) The copy of Usenet articles that Deja News had which Google acquired.
>2) Usenet as it exists today as a set of newsgroups.
>3) The groups in the Google Groups system
>
>#1 is a static and has not changed since acquisition.

This is not true. It has degraded since acquisition which is where the
resentment of older Usenet users comes from.

>#2 is what the people outside of Google use.

Yes.

>#3 is what the people inside of Google use.

Yes.

>#2 and #3 are close and related but are not the same thing.

They are quite remarkably different, especially in that #3 is far more full
of spam than #2.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 12/13/23 15:57, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> This is not true. It has degraded since acquisition which is where the
> resentment of older Usenet users comes from.

I maintain that the corpus of articles that Google acquired from Deja
News has not changed since the acquisition.

Yes, the interface thereto has gotten worse and yes more has been added
to the newsgroups.

But the articles as they existed in late 2000 still exist and have not
changed.

> They are quite remarkably different, especially in that #3 is far more full
> of spam than #2.

Google is spewing the spam out to the world.

It is by the grace of server administrators retroactively cleaning up
Google's mess that you aren't seeing nearly as much.

But if the outside news admins don't clean things up / block Google
Groups, you will see very close to the same thing as inside of Google.

I'll say it this way: An unfiltered news feed outside of Google will
show very similar things as a news feed inside of Google.

--
Grant. . . .

On 12/13/23 15:54, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> If this is the case, and it's possible, first thing is that they are using
> the same script to do it.

I suspect that some ... creative miscreants have produced code /
programs to spam Google Groups and distributed it -- likely for profit
-- to even lower miscreants who are spewing massive amounts of spam.

Before I started filtering I was seeing very similarly formatted things
in multiple languages advertising very different things.

I suspect it's a common tool and possibly common template therein that
causes many of the similarities.

> And secondly, they all are dumping stuff with the intention of being
> disruptive rather than the intention of gimmicking search engines.

I'm not convinced of that.

> I suspect initially they were trying to get search engine results up,
> but at this point they are just intending to be destructive.

I don't think that it ever did much for a /web/ search engine. Maybe it
did something for a /Usenet/ search engine. But I'm defaulting to /web/
as that's what 90% of people will think of when you ask them what a
search engine searches. ;-)

> This is why I suspect it's more likely to be one spammer, but I am not
> positive.

Let's agree to disagree. :-D

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/13/23 15:57, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> This is not true. It has degraded since acquisition which is where the
>> resentment of older Usenet users comes from.
>
>I maintain that the corpus of articles that Google acquired from Deja
>News has not changed since the acquisition.
>
>Yes, the interface thereto has gotten worse and yes more has been added
>to the newsgroups.
>
>But the articles as they existed in late 2000 still exist and have not
>changed.

This is possible, but we can't really know with the indices having been
broken so badly. There are messages that I know were in the database
in 2000 which I have copies of, but which I cannot find on google with any
search. They might be there but I have to assume they aren't.

>I'll say it this way: An unfiltered news feed outside of Google will
>show very similar things as a news feed inside of Google.

Unfortunately true, which is why everyone uses some degree of filtering.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/13/23 15:54, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> This is why I suspect it's more likely to be one spammer, but I am not
>> positive.
>
>Let's agree to disagree. :-D

Let's send a legal disclosure request to Google for user information.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> I suspect initially they were trying to get search engine results up,
>> but at this point they are just intending to be destructive.
>
> I don't think that it ever did much for a /web/ search engine. Maybe it
> did something for a /Usenet/ search engine. But I'm defaulting to /web/
> as that's what 90% of people will think of when you ask them what a
> search engine searches. ;-)

We know the difference between what http://groups.google.com/g/<nameofng>
searches versus what http://google.com searches where the groups.google.com
search is _only_ inside that singular newsgroup...

But...

I'll just make a point that when I search on the normal google.com search
engine, I sometimes find my own tutorials showing up, especially when the
topic is esoteric...

Which means...

Usenet results can spill into the regular google.com search engine output;
but (to my knowledge), web sites outside of Usenet/GoogleGroups do NOT
spill into the DejaGoogle search engine results.

If the spam wasn't there, DejaGoogle is rather useful for two purposes:
a. Looking things up BEFORE you post to a newsgroup, and,
b. Referencing an article by URI instead of by Message-ID

The beauty is that no newsreader is needed - and no account is needed.
And article retention is, for our purposes, forever (so to speak).
--
Usenet is a way to express what you think is the situation only to find
others who know it better than you do who correct your prior assessment.

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>On 12/13/23 15:54, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> This is why I suspect it's more likely to be one spammer, but I am not
>>> positive.
>>
>>Let's agree to disagree. :-D
>
> Let's send a legal disclosure request to Google for user information.

That's an interesting idea.

On 12/13/23 18:06, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> This is possible, but we can't really know with the indices having been
> broken so badly. There are messages that I know were in the database
> in 2000 which I have copies of, but which I cannot find on google with any
> search. They might be there but I have to assume they aren't.

I wonder if it would be possible, all be it extremely annoying ~>
infuriating, to go backwards message by message from current to find the
message that you're looking for.

> Unfortunately true, which is why everyone uses some degree of filtering.

I believe there are still people who aren't filtering in any way.

--
Grant. . . .

On 12/13/23 18:07, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Let's send a legal disclosure request to Google for user information.

Good luck.

Google will fight a user disclosure request with a LOT of money.

Then there is the question of what constitutes a user. Is a singular
person using two completely independent and unrelated accounts one or
two users?

--
Grant. . . .

On 12/13/23 19:41, Wally J wrote:
> We know the difference between what http://groups.google.com/g/<nameofng>
> searches versus what http://google.com searches where the groups.google.com
> search is _only_ inside that singular newsgroup...

We do. But does the average user using (unqualified) Google searching
for movies going to find web sites or news articles?

What if they use a different (unqualified) search engine?

My point being that even searching for the exact phrase in one of the
spam is going to be fairly unlikely to pop up on the first page of
(unqualified) Google search results. And it's even less likely to pop
up on the first page of some other search engine.

> I'll just make a point that when I search on the normal google.com search
> engine, I sometimes find my own tutorials showing up, especially when the
> topic is esoteric...

Yes, it is possible.

I suspect that the plethora of much things for streaming movies will
drown out such a Google Groups post so far past the first page that it's
not even funny.

> Which means...
>
> Usenet results can spill into the regular google.com search engine output;

Yes, it is possible. I just think that it will be extremely unlikely
given the context that the spam I've seen is advertising.

> but (to my knowledge), web sites outside of Usenet/GoogleGroups do NOT
> spill into the DejaGoogle search engine results.

Agreed.

But how many people will search inside of Google Groups Usenet gateway
search for movies to download? The people that will actually do so will
probably use a different search which is associated with their
commercial Usenet provider.

Sure, there will be a few people that try it and run into problems. But
the people actually using Usenet to transfer binary content almost
certainly aren't in the same group.

> If the spam wasn't there, DejaGoogle is rather useful for two purposes:
> a. Looking things up BEFORE you post to a newsgroup, and,
> b. Referencing an article by URI instead of by Message-ID

I absolutely agree.

> The beauty is that no newsreader is needed - and no account is needed.

I'd like to think that some other news provider also provides a web
interface.

Though I don't know about the account part.

> And article retention is, for our purposes, forever (so to speak).

True enough.

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> This is possible, but we can't really know with the indices having been
>> broken so badly. There are messages that I know were in the database
>> in 2000 which I have copies of, but which I cannot find on google with any
>> search. They might be there but I have to assume they aren't.
>
> I wonder if it would be possible, all be it extremely annoying ~>
> infuriating, to go backwards message by message from current to find the
> message that you're looking for.

I've been on Usenet for as long as anyone, and certainly prior to the
takeover of DejaNews by Google (which I'll call groups.google.com below).

Every once in a while I look for one of my old Usenet tutorials, where my
observation is that it's amazing how _different_ the results are when using
the www.google.com versus groups.google.com search engines (i.e.,
www.google.com is better at finding things by keyword, and specifically for
requiring and/or excluding items with the "+" and/or "-" directives.

Having observed that, I will also note that, to my recollection, in the
end, I _always_ find what I am seeking using the groups.google.com search
engine - so my plain assessment is that it's all there.

Unfortunately, as of only recently, the inordinate google-based spamming
is, in some groups, currently 99.5% of the spam (e.g., on c.m.a).
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
>> Unfortunately true, which is why everyone uses some degree of filtering.
>
> I believe there are still people who aren't filtering in any way.

In teh olden days, I implemented procmail filters, for the occasional spam
of one or two a week, and then I had to rely on the POP3/IMAP4 servers
handling that task, as it had suddenly become immense a decade or so ago.

For Usenet...

Up until I opened the thread asking where the google-based spam was coming
from, the only filters I had were for the likes of Snit & Sn!pe & % (aka
Rod Speed). Probably a half dozen nyms were plonked over the years.

Now I'm _forced_ to implement filters, where, shockingly, they're so simple
as to simply delete anything and everything that comes from google groups.

My telnet scripts will grab upwards of five hundred to a thousand articles
a day on c.m.a., only to result in an actual count of merely a handful.

At this point, for some Usenet newsgroups, much as we used procmail in the
olden days of SMTP, for Usenet, user filtering is currently de-rigueur.

Let's hope the "de-peering" that was initially recommended occurs, or, even
better, that enough people complain to Google such that they fix the issue.

*Please Do This!*
<https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about>
--
The whole point of Usenet is to find team mates who know more than you do.
And to contribute to the overall tribal knowledge value of the newsgroup.
It's a domino effect where each of us helps the next person in the lineup.

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> We know the difference between what http://groups.google.com/g/<nameofng>
>> searches versus what http://google.com searches where the groups.google.com
>> search is _only_ inside that singular newsgroup...
>
> We do. But does the average user using (unqualified) Google searching
> for movies going to find web sites or news articles?

Much agree. That's what's so perplexing about this google-based M0VIE spam.

Much like the Nigerian bank-account scams, I suspect these spammers aren't
as dumb as they make themselves appear to be (which is originally why I had
suspected it was a rogue nntp server and not coming out of real Google
accounts).

If I put my tin-foil hat on, there's probably more to the story than what
we would at first conjecture - but - alas - I'm not privy to the details.

Unless Usenet group contents spill onto the normal google.com search
engine, nobody on Usenet is going to be making use of this M0VIE spamming.

Note: The "indonesian spam" usually contained a URL, which I had assumed,
sans clicking on it, was a phishing expedition where I assumed malware was
the catch.

I didn't even look at the M0VIE spam to see if there's a hidden payload.

> What if they use a different (unqualified) search engine?

You bring up a good point in that there are many search engines, e.g.,
metager, duckduckgo, yahoo, bing, etc., none of which have I personally
tested to see if Usenet content spills over into them. Probably does.

I'm certainly aware that my own content spills over into Google.com
searches - so why wouldn't Usenet content also spill into other engines.
> My point being that even searching for the exact phrase in one of the
> spam is going to be fairly unlikely to pop up on the first page of
> (unqualified) Google search results. And it's even less likely to pop
> up on the first page of some other search engine.

Yes. Agree. With the caveat above that when I know what I'm looking for, I
can find my own Usenet content in google.com searches, but there's also the
fact that "mirror" sites exist that "L@@K" like normal web sites.

For example, there's a homeowner DIY site somewhere that mirrors
alt.home.repair such that our Usenet posts to a.h.r "could" be found in a
normal search engine result but linked to _that_ web site specifically.

Same with Windows newsgroups, e.g., I created this link many years ago:
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-10>
Because the "natural" dejagoogle link did not (and still does not) exist:
<http://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.os.windows-10>
So it points to a "normal" web site that search engines can easily pick up:
<http://www.pcbanter.net/forumdisplay.php?f=52>

In summary, I suspect these M0VIE spammers are smarter than I can account
for, but I too have no idea what their ultimate goal appears to be.

Hell, for all I know they could be sending tin-foil-hat messages back and
forth between Russian:Hungarian:Belarussian TLA operatives embedding their
informative payload in the otherwise seemingly gibberitic M0VIE spam
scrambled eggs.
>> I'll just make a point that when I search on the normal google.com search
>> engine, I sometimes find my own tutorials showing up, especially when the
>> topic is esoteric...
>
> Yes, it is possible.

Yes. Not likely. But it happens. Particularly, IMHO, when the content has
few hits (although many of my automotive-repair tutorials are found on the
car sites in the first page of Google hits, which I find satisfying for
some strange reason). When I leave an automotive newsgroup (e.g., when I
total the vehicle), they actually hunt me down - so I've learned - over
time - that web sites know a lot more about you than you might think.

> I suspect that the plethora of much things for streaming movies will
> drown out such a Google Groups post so far past the first page that it's
> not even funny.

Much agreed. From the beginning, I thought there was more to this than just
someone wanting us to click on their movie link - but I'm not smart enough
(nor informed enough) to be clued in on their Nigerian M0VIE spam motive.

Note: For those who don't know, the Nigerian bank scammers actually killed
people (check out the state dept web site on them) who thought they were
smarter than the scammers - where the scammers purposefully filled out the
email making them look stupid - and seeming to be easily taken advantage
of, where in that case, their payload was to hook people far to the left of
the Dunning-Kruger first quartile line and slowly reel them in.

I don't feel like looking up the State Dept site on that but that's my
recollection, the point of that story being I suspect there's more to this
rampant M0VIE spam than meets the untrained eye (such as mine clearly is).
>> Which means...
>>
>> Usenet results can spill into the regular google.com search engine output;
>
> Yes, it is possible. I just think that it will be extremely unlikely
> given the context that the spam I've seen is advertising.

Agree. We are in full agreement. Either it's stupid. Or it's very smart.
And I'm not informed enough to tell the difference, unfortunately.
>> but (to my knowledge), web sites outside of Usenet/GoogleGroups do NOT
>> spill into the DejaGoogle search engine results.
>
> Agreed.

ACK (to borrow your borrowed terminology)

> But how many people will search inside of Google Groups Usenet gateway
> search for movies to download? The people that will actually do so will
> probably use a different search which is associated with their
> commercial Usenet provider.

Absolutely I agree. Hence, there's likely more to it, using Occam's Razor.
However, I'm not privy to the secret decoder ring that explains their MO.

> Sure, there will be a few people that try it and run into problems. But
> the people actually using Usenet to transfer binary content almost
> certainly aren't in the same group.

Yup. Either these M0VIE spammers are extremely naive; or we are.
Pick one. :)

>> If the spam wasn't there, DejaGoogle is rather useful for two purposes:
>> a. Looking things up BEFORE you post to a newsgroup, and,
>> b. Referencing an article by URI instead of by Message-ID
>
> I absolutely agree.

Note that I was incensed in one of these related threads when the likes of
the always-ignorant iKooks started claiming "they had no problem" and
therefore, "because they had no problem, there wasn't a problem".

The problem, as "I" see it, in my own thought processes, is that the
utility of the dejagoogle search engine results is almost destroyed.

If _that_ was their intent (which I doubt it was), then they succeeded.

They _could_ be out trying to destroy the GoogleGroupsUsenet portal; but
why would they want to do that? As always, the motive eludes me.
>> The beauty is that no newsreader is needed - and no account is needed.
>
> I'd like to think that some other news provider also provides a web
> interface.
>
> Though I don't know about the account part.
>
>> And article retention is, for our purposes, forever (so to speak).
>
> True enough.

Thanks for understanding as I participate daily on the child-like Apple
newsgroups and on the adult OS newsgroups also, where I have to explain the
simplest of things to them - which - luckily - isn't the case here.

In summary, I openly and humbly declare that I have no clue what the M0VIE
spam purpose is, but it's destroying the utility of the dejagoogle engine.

That's why I would ask everyone on the team to complain to Google the only
way they can that won't take an arm and a leg of effort, which is this URL:
<https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about>

Rest assured, I have done that about twenty times on twenty different VPNs
(and on quite a number of different web browsers to foil fingerprinting).
--
Usenet is a wonderful way to meet people who can enlighten you if your eyes
are open to being shown a completely different way of looking at the issue.

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> >On 12/13/23 15:57, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> This is not true. It has degraded since acquisition which is where the
> >> resentment of older Usenet users comes from.
> >
> >I maintain that the corpus of articles that Google acquired from Deja
> >News has not changed since the acquisition.
> >
> >Yes, the interface thereto has gotten worse and yes more has been added
> >to the newsgroups.
> >
> >But the articles as they existed in late 2000 still exist and have not
> >changed.
>
> This is possible, but we can't really know with the indices having been
> broken so badly. There are messages that I know were in the database
> in 2000 which I have copies of, but which I cannot find on google with any
> search. They might be there but I have to assume they aren't.

You may want to try with:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID&dmode=source" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID&dmode=source
or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID

Where MID is the message-id without any delimiters.

As I mentioned before, this works for my February 24, 1989 article.
(To preserve my privacy and those of others, I won't give the URL.)

This old form of URL apparently still works for some (only old?)
articles.

But it does not work for new articles. For example it does not work
(gives "You are not a member of any groups yet") for your article (the
one I am responding to), while that article *is* in Google Groups (I
just checked).

So if you have a copy of an old article and want to point to that
article in Google Groups, you may want to try if the above old form
URL works.

BTW, if you know the newsgroup and some other keywords of an article,
you may want to try the limited group-secific search which *does* still
exist:

https://groups.google.com/g/<group-name>
i.e.
https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet

See the search box at the top of such group pages.

[...]

On 12/14/23 08:09, Wally J wrote:
> I didn't even look at the M0VIE spam to see if there's a hidden
> payload.

The movie posts that I looked at it didn't seem to have any payload
beyond links to websites. I spent some time looking at the message
source and don't recall seeing anything other than annoying and unwanted
text.

I didn't go to any of the links to comment on what is there.

> For example, there's a homeowner DIY site somewhere that mirrors
> alt.home.repair such that our Usenet posts to a.h.r "could" be
> found in a normal search engine result but linked to _that_ web
> site specifically.

Agreed. But we're talking about a small number of groups and I am not
aware of them being spammed. But I don't subscribe to them.

I further suspect that a worth while admin of such a spam site would
take measure to filter out such spam.

> In summary, I suspect these M0VIE spammers are smarter than I can
> account for, but I too have no idea what their ultimate goal appears
> to be.

I still think that the multiple spammers are simply using software to
send messages and letting the program spin away. Or go Brrrrr as so
many memes are apt to say.

There may be a reason for it. Maybe it's a tactic against Google
wherein the account used to send spam to Usenet is also sending spam to
email and they are trying to offset the ratio of what is sent where;
email vs Usenet, in the hopes of making their Google account look less
spammy to Google algorithms.

What's being done to Usenet may simply be a spammers equivalent of
industrial plants heating rivers as a by-product of using the river
water to cool equipment. Meaning that the spam might be a 2nd order
effect / byproduct of their primary goal.

> Hell, for all I know they could be sending tin-foil-hat messages
> back and forth between Russian:Hungarian:Belarussian TLA operatives
> embedding their informative payload in the otherwise seemingly
> gibberitic M0VIE spam scrambled eggs.

The messages that I've seen are clusters that are too similar to be
different content to me.

That being said, maybe it's a form of steganography wherein the multiple
messages are redundancy.

> Absolutely I agree. Hence, there's likely more to it, using Occam's
> Razor. However, I'm not privy to the secret decoder ring that explains
> their MO.

My understanding of Occam's Razor + parsimony is that the simplest
explanation is the most likely explanation and we don't really need any
other explanation. To whit, I maintain that the simplest and thus most
likely explanation is that multiple actors are simply letting their spam
publishing software go Brrrrr and we're suffering because of their actions.

> They _could_ be out trying to destroy the GoogleGroupsUsenet portal;
> but why would they want to do that? As always, the motive eludes me.

That is a more complex intent.

That would imply that there was some benefit in doing it.

Occam's Razor + parsimony suggest that this isn't the motivation.

> Thanks for understanding as I participate daily on the child-like Apple
> newsgroups and on the adult OS newsgroups also, where I have to explain
> the simplest of things to them - which - luckily - isn't the case here.

ACK

> In summary, I openly and humbly declare that I have no clue what
> the M0VIE spam purpose is, but it's destroying the utility of the
> dejagoogle engine.

Agreed. And I'm sorry for it.

> Rest assured, I have done that about twenty times on twenty different
> VPNs (and on quite a number of different web browsers to foil
> fingerprinting).

Sadly, I think the multiple reports could be misconstrued and end up
being a dis-service.

I strongly suspect that Google would give much more credence to fewer
(longer lived and more active) accounts sending multiple reports (which
pass the sanity check) than reports from more (shorter lived and less
active) accounts.

After all, what's to differentiate burner accounts posting spam vs other
burner accounts complaining about spam from a burner account turf war?

--
Grant. . . .