It looks like groups.google.com has again banned comp.lang.c for
"containing spam, malware, or other malicious content."

I wonder how long /this/ relief will last :-)
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"

On 6/1/2021 1:40 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> It looks like groups.google.com has again banned comp.lang.c for
> "containing spam, malware, or other malicious content."
>
> I wonder how long /this/ relief will last :-)
>

Oh no way. Let me check... Yup!

That pisses me off because all of my links using google to great posts
on this group are destroyed, again!

Argh.

"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>On 6/1/2021 1:40 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> It looks like groups.google.com has again banned comp.lang.c for
>> "containing spam, malware, or other malicious content."
>>
>> I wonder how long /this/ relief will last :-)
>>
>
>Oh no way. Let me check... Yup!
>
>That pisses me off because all of my links using google to great posts
>on this group are destroyed, again!
>
>Argh.

Not just comp.lang.c:

https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/01/google_usenet/

On 6/1/2021 2:08 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 6/1/2021 1:40 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>> It looks like groups.google.com has again banned comp.lang.c for
>>> "containing spam, malware, or other malicious content."
>>>
>>> I wonder how long /this/ relief will last :-)
>>>
>>
>> Oh no way. Let me check... Yup!
>>
>> That pisses me off because all of my links using google to great posts
>> on this group are destroyed, again!
>>
>> Argh.
>
> Not just comp.lang.c:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/01/google_usenet/
>

Oh my. I am wondering why google cannot just put up a serious warning.
Perhaps something like:

Beware of SPAM and links to dangerous programs! Here are some examples;
give a list. Click here to go to the "banned" Usenet group, but tread
lightly...

Why ban it all? Humm...

On 6/1/2021 3:40 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> It looks like groups.google.com has again banned comp.lang.c for
> "containing spam, malware, or other malicious content."
>
> I wonder how long /this/ relief will last :-)

This is why I use Eternal September and Thunderbird.
http://www.eternal-september.org/

Lynn

On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 14:21:29 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 6/1/2021 2:08 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 6/1/2021 1:40 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>> It looks like groups.google.com has again banned comp.lang.c for
>>>> "containing spam, malware, or other malicious content."
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how long /this/ relief will last :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh no way. Let me check... Yup!
>>>
>>> That pisses me off because all of my links using google to great posts
>>> on this group are destroyed, again!
>>>
>>> Argh.
>>
>> Not just comp.lang.c:
>>
>> https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/01/google_usenet/
>>
>
> Oh my. I am wondering why google cannot just put up a serious warning.
> Perhaps something like:
>
> Beware of SPAM and links to dangerous programs! Here are some examples;
> give a list. Click here to go to the "banned" Usenet group, but tread
> lightly...
>
> Why ban it all? Humm...

Google has no problem with banning, in their interface, specific messages
or threads, and certainly knows that the usenet traffic that they externalize
is /not/ under their (or any one else's) control. They should have no problem
identifying and blocking groups.google.com access to individual messages or
whole threads that they identify as "spam, malware or other malicious content".

I wonder why they don't just exercise /that/ ability, instead of outright banning
groups?

--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 21:53:08 -0000 (UTC), Lew Pitcher
<lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 14:21:29 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2021 2:08 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 6/1/2021 1:40 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>>> It looks like groups.google.com has again banned comp.lang.c for
>>>>> "containing spam, malware, or other malicious content."
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how long /this/ relief will last :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh no way. Let me check... Yup!
>>>>
>>>> That pisses me off because all of my links using google to great posts
>>>> on this group are destroyed, again!
>>>>
>>>> Argh.
>>>
>>> Not just comp.lang.c:
>>>
>>> https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/01/google_usenet/
>>>
>>
>> Oh my. I am wondering why google cannot just put up a serious warning.
>> Perhaps something like:
>>
>> Beware of SPAM and links to dangerous programs! Here are some examples;
>> give a list. Click here to go to the "banned" Usenet group, but tread
>> lightly...
>>
>> Why ban it all? Humm...
>
>Google has no problem with banning, in their interface, specific messages
>or threads, and certainly knows that the usenet traffic that they externalize
>is /not/ under their (or any one else's) control. They should have no problem
>identifying and blocking groups.google.com access to individual messages or
>whole threads that they identify as "spam, malware or other malicious content".

google groups replicates usenet newsgroups so the user can be posting
from anywhere and not from google.

>
>I wonder why they don't just exercise /that/ ability, instead of outright banning
>groups?

here in Italy we call this "summary punishment".

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 16:30:23 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/1/2021 3:40 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> It looks like groups.google.com has again banned comp.lang.c for
>> "containing spam, malware, or other malicious content."
>>
>> I wonder how long /this/ relief will last :-)
>
>This is why I use Eternal September and Thunderbird.
> http://www.eternal-september.org/
>
>Lynn

this won't save you from reading spam.

On 01/06/2021 22:53, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
> Google has no problem with banning, in their interface, specific messages
> or threads, and certainly knows that the usenet traffic that they externalize
> is /not/ under their (or any one else's) control. They should have no problem
> identifying and blocking groups.google.com access to individual messages or
> whole threads that they identify as "spam, malware or other malicious content".
>
> I wonder why they don't just exercise /that/ ability, instead of outright banning
> groups?
>

If you email abuse@google-groups.com ... then you just get a 'there is
no google group called abuse' bounce.

On 6/1/2021 10:07 PM, Doctor Who wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 16:30:23 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2021 3:40 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>> It looks like groups.google.com has again banned comp.lang.c for
>>> "containing spam, malware, or other malicious content."
>>>
>>> I wonder how long /this/ relief will last :-)
>>
>> This is why I use Eternal September and Thunderbird.
>> http://www.eternal-september.org/
>>
>> Lynn
>
> this won't save you from reading spam.

Nothing saves one from spam except the Postini filters in Gmail.

Lynn

On 6/1/2021 4:30 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 3:40 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> It looks like groups.google.com has again banned comp.lang.c for
>> "containing spam, malware, or other malicious content."
>>
>> I wonder how long /this/ relief will last :-)
>
> This is why I use Eternal September and Thunderbird.
>    http://www.eternal-september.org/
>
> Lynn
>

That is a great idea. I have been using Thunderbird for a long time, I
just found out about Eternal-September.

They are a great backup in case GigaNews goes down. I think that
GigaNews has the longest retention history so they are worth the $5 per
month.

--
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

olcott wrote:

> I think that GigaNews has the longest retention history so they are
> worth the $5 per month.
Have you tried asking them to carry any new groups recently?

On 6/3/2021 12:55 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> olcott wrote:
>
>> I think that GigaNews has the longest retention history so they are
>> worth the $5 per month.
> Have you tried asking them to carry any new groups recently?

I only need to see all of my work in comp.theory.
They have it all the way back to its beginning.

--
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 14:21:29 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
<snup>
>
> Google has no problem with banning, in their interface, specific
> messages or threads, and certainly knows that the usenet traffic
> that they externalize is /not/ under their (or any one else's)
> control.

I think this is the answer to your question :)
But yes, that is the question I have too.

> They should have no problem identifying and blocking
> groups.google.com access to individual messages or whole threads
> that they identify as "spam, malware or other malicious content".
>
> I wonder why they don't just exercise /that/ ability, instead of
> outright banning groups?

Probably because Google cannot find a 'real person' who
posts from places other than their brain dead interface.

John

On 6/1/2021 2:53 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 14:21:29 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2021 2:08 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 6/1/2021 1:40 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>>> It looks like groups.google.com has again banned comp.lang.c for
>>>>> "containing spam, malware, or other malicious content."
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how long /this/ relief will last :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh no way. Let me check... Yup!
>>>>
>>>> That pisses me off because all of my links using google to great posts
>>>> on this group are destroyed, again!
>>>>
>>>> Argh.
>>>
>>> Not just comp.lang.c:
>>>
>>> https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/01/google_usenet/
>>>
>>
>> Oh my. I am wondering why google cannot just put up a serious warning.
>> Perhaps something like:
>>
>> Beware of SPAM and links to dangerous programs! Here are some examples;
>> give a list. Click here to go to the "banned" Usenet group, but tread
>> lightly...
>>
>> Why ban it all? Humm...
>
> Google has no problem with banning, in their interface, specific messages
> or threads, and certainly knows that the usenet traffic that they externalize
> is /not/ under their (or any one else's) control. They should have no problem
> identifying and blocking groups.google.com access to individual messages or
> whole threads that they identify as "spam, malware or other malicious content".

Agreed.

> I wonder why they don't just exercise /that/ ability, instead of outright banning
> groups?
>

I do not know! Damn. ;^o

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 2:53 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 14:21:29 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/1/2021 2:08 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 6/1/2021 1:40 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>>>> It looks like groups.google.com has again banned comp.lang.c for
>>>>>> "containing spam, malware, or other malicious content."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder how long /this/ relief will last :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh no way. Let me check... Yup!
>>>>>
>>>>> That pisses me off because all of my links using google to great posts
>>>>> on this group are destroyed, again!
>>>>>
>>>>> Argh.
>>>>
>>>> Not just comp.lang.c:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/01/google_usenet/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh my. I am wondering why google cannot just put up a serious warning.
>>> Perhaps something like:
>>>
>>> Beware of SPAM and links to dangerous programs! Here are some examples;
>>> give a list. Click here to go to the "banned" Usenet group, but tread
>>> lightly...
>>>
>>> Why ban it all? Humm...
>>
>> Google has no problem with banning, in their interface, specific messages
>> or threads, and certainly knows that the usenet traffic that they
>> externalize
>> is /not/ under their (or any one else's) control. They should have no
>> problem
>> identifying and blocking groups.google.com access to individual
>> messages or
>> whole threads that they identify as "spam, malware or other malicious
>> content".
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> I wonder why they don't just exercise /that/ ability, instead of
>> outright banning
>> groups?
>>
>
> I do not know! Damn. ;^o

It fits into their "zero human support" model.

When the "abuse" reports come in, you just count them
with a script, threshold, then trash the group.

Think how many dollars that saves.

Policies that involved "thinking" or "reasoning",
those cost money. Like closing accounts on
spammers or whatever.

Think of the netfront server, as the ideal example.
When there was a flood caused by a single poster
equipped with a VPN machine gun, netfront caused
their entire server to go read-only. No more posting
allowed. Now, how is that for effective ? It's
perfection. How can you spam or flood, if no group
is open to posting ?

Paul