In article <20231012153550.7947ae6634cf3e9608693d7c@g{oogle}mail.com>,
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
>Retro Guy:
>
>> We don't. news.i2pn2.org tries to filter spam,
>> googlegroups is NOT blocked. You will see some spam make
>> it though now and then.
>
>I do not see the last Michael's posts there:
>
> <22409111-1019-4b5f-9aa1-f28e0b109631n@googlegroups.com>
> <20231012132842.000054bd@yahoo.com>
>
>False positives?
>
I just blocked Google Groups and I do not regret it!

>--
>() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
>/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

--
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 https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
If you can find time to grouse about them, you can find time to pray for them. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <20231012064202.b216ee53fd2d618ded8e2271@novabbs.org>,
Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
>Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:48:30 AM UTC+3, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>> > Michael S:
>> > > 8991 is blocked too. Everything is blocked except HTTP,
>> > > HTTPS and 10443 .
>> > A case for a web-client to Usenet, like SquirrelMail for
>> > e-mail? After all, popular IRC servers already feature an
>> > online client right on their webistes...
>> > --
>> > () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
>> > /\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
>>
>> Web client for Usenet exists for 22 years.
>> It is called Google Groups.
>
>This doesn't have every group, just a selection, but there are web
>clients out there:
>https://www.novabbs.com/devel/thread.php?group=comp.lang.c
>

What are you using at Nova?

>--
>Retro Guy

--
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 https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
If you can find time to grouse about them, you can find time to pray for them. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
[...]
> I just blocked Google Groups and I do not regret it!

Good for you.

Why must you keep talking about this in comp.lang.c?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

In article <87wmvrs4ly.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>,
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
>[...]
>> I just blocked Google Groups and I do not regret it!
>
>Good for you.
>
>Why must you keep talking about this in comp.lang.c?
>

Because of Google's proven abusive behaviour
>--
>Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
>Will write code for food.
>void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

--
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 https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Abundance more often leads to devastation than peace. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
> In article <87wmvrs4ly.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>,
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
>>[...]
>>> I just blocked Google Groups and I do not regret it!
>>
>>Good for you.
>>
>>Why must you keep talking about this in comp.lang.c?
>
> Because of Google's proven abusive behaviour

Was I unclear?

Why must you keep talking about this *in comp.lang.c* rather than
somewhere else? Those of us who are here to discuss C are already
aware of Google's behavior. None of us can do anything about it.
We have more than enough spam to deal with without you adding to it.

I would think you'd be aware of the purpose of having different
newsgroups for discussing different topics.

Your article's headers include
mail-complaints-to="usenet@gallifrey.nk.ca
Would complaining about you to that address be useful, or are you the
administrator?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

On 10/12/2023 8:17 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
> [...]
>> I just blocked Google Groups and I do not regret it!
>
> Good for you.
>
> Why must you keep talking about this in comp.lang.c?
>

news.eternal-september.org
news.i2pn2.org

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 10:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
wrote:

>On 2023-10-09, Geeknix wrote:
>> On 2023-10-08, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>>> On 2023-10-08, Bart wrote:
>>>> On 08/10/2023 21:02, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-10-08, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>>>>> [Repeating this important message lest it drown in SPAM]
>>>>>
>>>>> ... or just set your killfile properly?
>>>>
>>>> What filters did you use to deal with 2400 spam posts a day?
>>>
>>> I just burned anything sent in with a (source) Message-ID including
>>> "googlegroups.com". Alternatively, others have stated killing the
>>> posting User-Agent "G2/1.0" also works.
>>
>> I'm really bad at writing killfiles, write once then forget a bit like
>> Perl. My SLRN has this which seems to works as I don't see any of the
>> mentioned spam:
>>
>> [*]
>> Score: -9999
>> Injection-Info: googlegroups
>> Message-ID: googlegroups\.com
>> X-Trace: posting\.google\.com
>>
>> Would I just add:
>>
>> User-Agent: G2/1\.0
>>
>> per your example?
>
>It is not required to have both, in fact my killfile entry for them is
>simply:
>
> %BOS
> [*]
> %no more gg spam!
> Score: =-9999
> Message-ID: .*@googlegroups\.com.*$
> %EOS
>
>The alternate approach would (to my understanding) be:
>
> %BOS
> [*]
> %no more gg spam!
> Score: =-9999
> User-Agent: G2/1\.0
> %EOS
>
>NOTE: the above are typed out in the message here, I might've missed
>some (required) indentation.

la cosa si risolve se ciascun indirizzo ip ha nel giorno al massimo 10
post, ciascun inidirizzo x1.x2.x3.(0..255) ha a disposizione al
massimo 100 post

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:46:58 PM UTC+3, Bart wrote:
> > On 10/10/2023 11:41, Bart wrote:
> > > On 10/10/2023 08:39, Michael S wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bart wrote:
> > >>> On 08/10/2023 21:02, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > >>>> On 2023-10-08, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > >>>>> [Repeating this important message lest it drown in SPAM]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ... or just set your killfile properly?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> What filters did you use to deal with 2400 spam posts a day?
> > >>>
> > >>> This is something that needs to be dealt with at source not
> > >>> with individual kill files. Which in the case of Thunderbird,
> > >>> had no way of dealing with all those shape-shifting posts in
> > >>> exotic alphabets.
> > >>
> > >> It was 2400 few days ago.
> > >> Now more like 24,000 spam posts per day, may be even more.
> > >> Would it be 240,000 per day next week?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I've just looked at googlegroups and there were 13 posts with a
> > > time-stamp of 11:31, which would be 18/19000 per day.
> > I've checked googlegroups again. There were 30 posts time-stamped
> > 20:32, which would be 43,000 per day. That is just insane.
> >
> > I wonder how long it would take, even with viable set of filter
> > rules, to discard those 40,000-odd posts if you checked say once a
> > day (or came back to it after a 2-week holiday!).
> >
>
> On average it's not THAT bad.
> ~400 spam messages per hour == 10K per day.
> About the same rate as yesterday or even a little slower.
>

It seems they are starting to slow down a little.
~250 spam messages per hour now.

> > This is actually fascinating to see how much more intense this
> > spam-bombardment will get, and either googlegroups grinds to a
> > halt, or they are forced to do something about. Hopefully not just
> > shutting it down.
>
> Unfortunately, on google scale 10K messages per day is nothing. I
> suspect that even 100 times more than that is still nothing.

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC+3, Michael S wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
> Michael S <already...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:46:58 PM UTC+3, Bart wrote:
> > > On 10/10/2023 11:41, Bart wrote:
> > > > On 10/10/2023 08:39, Michael S wrote:
> > > >> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bart wrote:
> > > >>> On 08/10/2023 21:02, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > > >>>> On 2023-10-08, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > > >>>>> [Repeating this important message lest it drown in SPAM]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ... or just set your killfile properly?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> What filters did you use to deal with 2400 spam posts a day?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is something that needs to be dealt with at source not
> > > >>> with individual kill files. Which in the case of Thunderbird,
> > > >>> had no way of dealing with all those shape-shifting posts in
> > > >>> exotic alphabets.
> > > >>
> > > >> It was 2400 few days ago.
> > > >> Now more like 24,000 spam posts per day, may be even more.
> > > >> Would it be 240,000 per day next week?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I've just looked at googlegroups and there were 13 posts with a
> > > > time-stamp of 11:31, which would be 18/19000 per day.
> > > I've checked googlegroups again. There were 30 posts time-stamped
> > > 20:32, which would be 43,000 per day. That is just insane.
> > >
> > > I wonder how long it would take, even with viable set of filter
> > > rules, to discard those 40,000-odd posts if you checked say once a
> > > day (or came back to it after a 2-week holiday!).
> > >
> >
> > On average it's not THAT bad.
> > ~400 spam messages per hour == 10K per day.
> > About the same rate as yesterday or even a little slower.
> >
>
> It seems they are starting to slow down a little.
> ~250 spam messages per hour now.
>

Less than 100 spam messages per hour at the moment.

> > > This is actually fascinating to see how much more intense this
> > > spam-bombardment will get, and either googlegroups grinds to a
> > > halt, or they are forced to do something about. Hopefully not just
> > > shutting it down.
> >
> > Unfortunately, on google scale 10K messages per day is nothing. I
> > suspect that even 100 times more than that is still nothing.

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 10:37:34 PM UTC+3, Michael S wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC+3, Michael S wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
> > Michael S <already...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:46:58 PM UTC+3, Bart wrote:
> > > > On 10/10/2023 11:41, Bart wrote:
> > > > > On 10/10/2023 08:39, Michael S wrote:
> > > > >> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bart wrote:
> > > > >>> On 08/10/2023 21:02, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > > > >>>> On 2023-10-08, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > > > >>>>> [Repeating this important message lest it drown in SPAM]
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> ... or just set your killfile properly?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> What filters did you use to deal with 2400 spam posts a day?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> This is something that needs to be dealt with at source not
> > > > >>> with individual kill files. Which in the case of Thunderbird,
> > > > >>> had no way of dealing with all those shape-shifting posts in
> > > > >>> exotic alphabets.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It was 2400 few days ago.
> > > > >> Now more like 24,000 spam posts per day, may be even more.
> > > > >> Would it be 240,000 per day next week?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > I've just looked at googlegroups and there were 13 posts with a
> > > > > time-stamp of 11:31, which would be 18/19000 per day.
> > > > I've checked googlegroups again. There were 30 posts time-stamped
> > > > 20:32, which would be 43,000 per day. That is just insane.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder how long it would take, even with viable set of filter
> > > > rules, to discard those 40,000-odd posts if you checked say once a
> > > > day (or came back to it after a 2-week holiday!).
> > > >
> > >
> > > On average it's not THAT bad.
> > > ~400 spam messages per hour == 10K per day.
> > > About the same rate as yesterday or even a little slower.
> > >
> >
> > It seems they are starting to slow down a little.
> > ~250 spam messages per hour now.
> >
> Less than 100 spam messages per hour at the moment.

At one moment the rate went down to 50 per hour, but it was temporary.
For the last 3-4 hours it's back to 200+ spam posts per hour.

> > > > This is actually fascinating to see how much more intense this
> > > > spam-bombardment will get, and either googlegroups grinds to a
> > > > halt, or they are forced to do something about. Hopefully not just
> > > > shutting it down.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, on google scale 10K messages per day is nothing. I
> > > suspect that even 100 times more than that is still nothing.

On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:41:29 AM UTC+3, Michael S wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 10:37:34 PM UTC+3, Michael S wrote:
> > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC+3, Michael S wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Michael S <already...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:46:58 PM UTC+3, Bart wrote:
> > > > > On 10/10/2023 11:41, Bart wrote:
> > > > > > On 10/10/2023 08:39, Michael S wrote:
> > > > > >> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bart wrote:
> > > > > >>> On 08/10/2023 21:02, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On 2023-10-08, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> [Repeating this important message lest it drown in SPAM]
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> ... or just set your killfile properly?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> What filters did you use to deal with 2400 spam posts a day?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> This is something that needs to be dealt with at source not
> > > > > >>> with individual kill files. Which in the case of Thunderbird,
> > > > > >>> had no way of dealing with all those shape-shifting posts in
> > > > > >>> exotic alphabets.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It was 2400 few days ago.
> > > > > >> Now more like 24,000 spam posts per day, may be even more.
> > > > > >> Would it be 240,000 per day next week?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've just looked at googlegroups and there were 13 posts with a
> > > > > > time-stamp of 11:31, which would be 18/19000 per day.
> > > > > I've checked googlegroups again. There were 30 posts time-stamped
> > > > > 20:32, which would be 43,000 per day. That is just insane.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder how long it would take, even with viable set of filter
> > > > > rules, to discard those 40,000-odd posts if you checked say once a
> > > > > day (or came back to it after a 2-week holiday!).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > On average it's not THAT bad.
> > > > ~400 spam messages per hour == 10K per day.
> > > > About the same rate as yesterday or even a little slower.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It seems they are starting to slow down a little.
> > > ~250 spam messages per hour now.
> > >
> > Less than 100 spam messages per hour at the moment.
> At one moment the rate went down to 50 per hour, but it was temporary.
> For the last 3-4 hours it's back to 200+ spam posts per hour.

And now 450 spam posts per hour.
Looks like a new peak.

> > > > > This is actually fascinating to see how much more intense this
> > > > > spam-bombardment will get, and either googlegroups grinds to a
> > > > > halt, or they are forced to do something about. Hopefully not just
> > > > > shutting it down.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, on google scale 10K messages per day is nothing. I
> > > > suspect that even 100 times more than that is still nothing.

On 10/20/2023 6:14 AM, Michael S wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:41:29 AM UTC+3, Michael S wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 10:37:34 PM UTC+3, Michael S wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC+3, Michael S wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> Michael S <already...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:46:58 PM UTC+3, Bart wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/10/2023 11:41, Bart wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/10/2023 08:39, Michael S wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bart wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 08/10/2023 21:02, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-08, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [Repeating this important message lest it drown in SPAM]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ... or just set your killfile properly?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What filters did you use to deal with 2400 spam posts a day?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is something that needs to be dealt with at source not
>>>>>>>>> with individual kill files. Which in the case of Thunderbird,
>>>>>>>>> had no way of dealing with all those shape-shifting posts in
>>>>>>>>> exotic alphabets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was 2400 few days ago.
>>>>>>>> Now more like 24,000 spam posts per day, may be even more.
>>>>>>>> Would it be 240,000 per day next week?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've just looked at googlegroups and there were 13 posts with a
>>>>>>> time-stamp of 11:31, which would be 18/19000 per day.
>>>>>> I've checked googlegroups again. There were 30 posts time-stamped
>>>>>> 20:32, which would be 43,000 per day. That is just insane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder how long it would take, even with viable set of filter
>>>>>> rules, to discard those 40,000-odd posts if you checked say once a
>>>>>> day (or came back to it after a 2-week holiday!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On average it's not THAT bad.
>>>>> ~400 spam messages per hour == 10K per day.
>>>>> About the same rate as yesterday or even a little slower.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems they are starting to slow down a little.
>>>> ~250 spam messages per hour now.
>>>>
>>> Less than 100 spam messages per hour at the moment.
>> At one moment the rate went down to 50 per hour, but it was temporary.
>> For the last 3-4 hours it's back to 200+ spam posts per hour.
>
> And now 450 spam posts per hour.
> Looks like a new peak.
>

none at all on the recommended server

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 04:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:41:29 AM UTC+3, Michael S wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 10:37:34 PM UTC+3, Michael S wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC+3, Michael S
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > Michael S <already...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:46:58 PM UTC+3, Bart
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On 10/10/2023 11:41, Bart wrote:
> > > > > > > On 10/10/2023 08:39, Michael S wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bart
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On 08/10/2023 21:02, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On 2023-10-08, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> [Repeating this important message lest it drown in
> > > > > > >>>>> SPAM]
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> ... or just set your killfile properly?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> What filters did you use to deal with 2400 spam posts a
> > > > > > >>> day?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> This is something that needs to be dealt with at source
> > > > > > >>> not with individual kill files. Which in the case of
> > > > > > >>> Thunderbird, had no way of dealing with all those
> > > > > > >>> shape-shifting posts in exotic alphabets.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> It was 2400 few days ago.
> > > > > > >> Now more like 24,000 spam posts per day, may be even
> > > > > > >> more. Would it be 240,000 per day next week?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've just looked at googlegroups and there were 13 posts
> > > > > > > with a time-stamp of 11:31, which would be 18/19000 per
> > > > > > > day.
> > > > > > I've checked googlegroups again. There were 30 posts
> > > > > > time-stamped 20:32, which would be 43,000 per day. That is
> > > > > > just insane.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder how long it would take, even with viable set of
> > > > > > filter rules, to discard those 40,000-odd posts if you
> > > > > > checked say once a day (or came back to it after a 2-week
> > > > > > holiday!).
> > > > >
> > > > > On average it's not THAT bad.
> > > > > ~400 spam messages per hour == 10K per day.
> > > > > About the same rate as yesterday or even a little slower.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It seems they are starting to slow down a little.
> > > > ~250 spam messages per hour now.
> > > >
> > > Less than 100 spam messages per hour at the moment.
> > At one moment the rate went down to 50 per hour, but it was
> > temporary. For the last 3-4 hours it's back to 200+ spam posts per
> > hour.
>
> And now 450 spam posts per hour.
> Looks like a new peak.
>

2022-10-15 - 3588 new topics
2022-10-16 - 3673
2022-10-17 - 4261
2022-10-18 - 1840
2022-10-19 - 5491
2022-10-20 - 6955
2022-10-21 - 7541

> > > > > > This is actually fascinating to see how much more intense
> > > > > > this spam-bombardment will get, and either googlegroups
> > > > > > grinds to a halt, or they are forced to do something about.
> > > > > > Hopefully not just shutting it down.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, on google scale 10K messages per day is
> > > > > nothing. I suspect that even 100 times more than that is
> > > > > still nothing.
>

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:16:47 +0300
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 04:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:41:29 AM UTC+3, Michael S
> > wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 10:37:34 PM UTC+3, Michael S
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:33:00 AM UTC+3, Michael S
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > Michael S <already...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 10:46:58 PM UTC+3, Bart
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On 10/10/2023 11:41, Bart wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 10/10/2023 08:39, Michael S wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 11:37:35 PM UTC+3, Bart
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> On 08/10/2023 21:02, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> On 2023-10-08, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>> [Repeating this important message lest it drown in
> > > > > > > >>>>> SPAM]
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> ... or just set your killfile properly?
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>> What filters did you use to deal with 2400 spam posts
> > > > > > > >>> a day?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> This is something that needs to be dealt with at
> > > > > > > >>> source not with individual kill files. Which in the
> > > > > > > >>> case of Thunderbird, had no way of dealing with all
> > > > > > > >>> those shape-shifting posts in exotic alphabets.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> It was 2400 few days ago.
> > > > > > > >> Now more like 24,000 spam posts per day, may be even
> > > > > > > >> more. Would it be 240,000 per day next week?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've just looked at googlegroups and there were 13 posts
> > > > > > > > with a time-stamp of 11:31, which would be 18/19000 per
> > > > > > > > day.
> > > > > > > I've checked googlegroups again. There were 30 posts
> > > > > > > time-stamped 20:32, which would be 43,000 per day. That is
> > > > > > > just insane.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wonder how long it would take, even with viable set of
> > > > > > > filter rules, to discard those 40,000-odd posts if you
> > > > > > > checked say once a day (or came back to it after a 2-week
> > > > > > > holiday!).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On average it's not THAT bad.
> > > > > > ~400 spam messages per hour == 10K per day.
> > > > > > About the same rate as yesterday or even a little slower.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems they are starting to slow down a little.
> > > > > ~250 spam messages per hour now.
> > > > >
> > > > Less than 100 spam messages per hour at the moment.
> > > At one moment the rate went down to 50 per hour, but it was
> > > temporary. For the last 3-4 hours it's back to 200+ spam posts per
> > > hour.
> >
> > And now 450 spam posts per hour.
> > Looks like a new peak.
> >
>
> 2022-10-15 - 3588 new topics
> 2022-10-16 - 3673
> 2022-10-17 - 4261
> 2022-10-18 - 1840
> 2022-10-19 - 5491
> 2022-10-20 - 6955
> 2022-10-21 - 7541
>
>

On the second thought, my method of gathering statistics is most likely
wrong and all numbers above are wrong as well.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > This is actually fascinating to see how much more intense
> > > > > > > this spam-bombardment will get, and either googlegroups
> > > > > > > grinds to a halt, or they are forced to do something
> > > > > > > about. Hopefully not just shutting it down.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, on google scale 10K messages per day is
> > > > > > nothing. I suspect that even 100 times more than that is
> > > > > > still nothing.
> >
>
>

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 16:27:29 +0300
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> wrote:

> Usenet server i2pn2 carries comp.lang.c without the Thai SPAM, but
> with normal GG articles. You can check via anonymous read-only access
> at news.i2pn2.org:119 , but you must registed to post:
>
> https://www.i2pn2.org/?page_id=9

They did a perfect job for two weeks.
But ~ a hour ago first Thai spam topic went through.