Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralPortable MacsHardwareNetworking
Applications
Mac ApplicationsEudoraFirefox / MozillaInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressMS OfficeEntourageExcelPowerPointWordVirtual PCMedia PlayerOther MS Products
Programming
Mac ProgrammingCodeWarriorPerl
Country Specific
Australian Mac GroupUK Mac Group

Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / March 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Chinese Marketing Kills Usenet

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
gtr - 12 Mar 2008 16:16 GMT
Well, much of it seemed to be Chinese for a while, but now it's
branching out. Is that the title I'll be reading in the Times in a
couple of weeks?

These guys have really stunk the place up in a way I haven't seen before.

I've kill-filed subjects with "http" embedded and have pondered killing
all gmail addresses since they seemed to dominate.  But it seems they
are faster and smarter than that. What a bummer!

This morning it looks about half and half: 7 marketing, 7 actual
participants.  It's growing damned fast!
Signature

Thank you and have a nice day.

Jeffrey Goldberg - 12 Mar 2008 17:41 GMT
> These guys have really stunk the place up in a way I haven't seen
> before. [...]

> This morning it looks about half and half: 7 marketing, 7 actual
> participants.  It's growing damned fast!

Those of us using Supernews don't see the problem.

-j

Signature

Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
 http://improve-usenet.org/

Jolly Roger - 12 Mar 2008 17:45 GMT
In article
<alpine.OSX.1.00.0803121140320.1044@hagrid.ewd.goldmark.org>,

> > These guys have really stunk the place up in a way I haven't seen
> > before. [...]
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Those of us using Supernews don't see the problem.

...until someone else replies to the nonsense, that is.  ; )

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

ediebur@rcn.com - 13 Mar 2008 22:01 GMT
> > These guys have really stunk the place up in a way I haven't seen
> > before. [...]
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>   I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
>  http://improve-usenet.org/

I saw this start up in two groups, I a only really talking about the
nonsense ones. Before it started there was a warning that the trash
was coming and that supernews could control it. Then it came. I have
been wary of supernews ever since
Clever Monkey - 12 Mar 2008 18:06 GMT
> Well, much of it seemed to be Chinese for a while, but now it's
> branching out. Is that the title I'll be reading in the Times in a
> couple of weeks?
>
> These guys have really stunk the place up in a way I haven't seen before.

Unfortunately, a large amount of NNTP and SMTP traffic originating on
netblocks owned by Chinese and Korean interests is simply spam.

For example, the greylisting spam system I use blocks all SMTP messages
originating on any IP from those places, as a /default/ setting.  I've
gone further and blocked entire netblocks owned by some US hosting
companies right at our routers, since they can't seem to manage all the
zombies in their network.

Scorched earth, maybe, but it's the way things are going.  The SNR from
these sites is so low it isn't worth routing the traffic.  Many NNTP and
SMTP relays drop this traffic as a matter of course.
Signature

clvrmnky <mailto:spamtrap@clevermonkey.org>

Direct replies to this address will be blacklisted.  Replace "spamtrap"
with my name to contact me directly.

Dave Balderstone - 12 Mar 2008 20:05 GMT
> Well, much of it seemed to be Chinese for a while, but now it's
> branching out. Is that the title I'll be reading in the Times in a
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> This morning it looks about half and half: 7 marketing, 7 actual
> participants.  It's growing damned fast!

Switch to a news provider that takes an active interest in killing the
crap at their servers. Supernews does a damned good job.

Signature

Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

GeeFive - 12 Mar 2008 23:11 GMT
> These guys have really stunk the place up in a way I haven't seen before.

It's amazing how many groups have been taken over by chyneeze spammers.
Does anyone here remember a time when spammers were actively hunted
down by zealous group members?  I see none of that anymore.  It seems
as if the veteran spam hunters have disappeared and been replaced with
people who are more accepting of spam, or who see it and move on.

My ISP manager says that USENET is finished.  He can't wait until the
last few people stop using it so he can get rid of it.

I may be mistaken, but it's my impression that USENET is the only place
left where one can express an opinion without fear.  Most every website
wants registration, and requires javascript.  

Javascript is such a huge security risk and yet it's being forced on
everyone.  I don't understand it.  Everyone in the industry is security
conscious, yet they promote scripting and hire the javascript kiddies
out of the colleges with their professors' latest scripting techniques.
Now I can't even access my own ISP's services without javascript being
turned on.

Sorry, javascript is my pet peeve.

The point is, fewer people will contribute to these forums as spam
increases.  Ultimately, this spells the end of the medium.  It's sad.
The chyneeze angle is interesting.  I wonder if part of the overall
cyber-attack strategy they have is to suddenly flood all of the USENET
groups with an endless stream of spam as a form of service denial?  It
could be that we are seeing is just a test of the system for the
upcoming deluge.
Richard Maine - 13 Mar 2008 00:17 GMT
> My ISP manager says that USENET is finished.

If you have been around Usenet very much, you should know that the
"traditional" way to say this is

 "Imminent death of Usenet predicted. Film at 11."

If you haven't been around much, then perhaps just the fact that there
is a "traditional" way to say this should tell you something.... which
is sort of the idea This tradition is about 20 years old.

Signature

Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

Clever Monkey - 13 Mar 2008 17:11 GMT
>> My ISP manager says that USENET is finished.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> is a "traditional" way to say this should tell you something.... which
> is sort of the idea This tradition is about 20 years old.

Absolutely.  As soon as that USENET tax comes through, we're done.  Any
day now. (Yeah, I know: less funny with the recent dialogue on tiered
internet service and communications taxes being considered by some US
states.)
Signature

clvrmnky <mailto:spamtrap@clevermonkey.org>

Direct replies to this address will be blacklisted.  Replace "spamtrap"
with my name to contact me directly.

Jolly Roger - 13 Mar 2008 00:47 GMT
> My ISP manager says that USENET is finished.  He can't wait until the
> last few people stop using it so he can get rid of it.

Hope he doesn't hold his breath.  ; )

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

gtr - 13 Mar 2008 01:31 GMT
>> These guys have really stunk the place up in a way I haven't seen before.
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Sorry, javascript is my pet peeve.

I have a lot of pet peeves about "message boards" and all the rest.  
You have to learn a new system, a lousy one, every three weeks.  Usenet
is still neat, clean efficient.  There oughta be a way.  SuperNews may
be useful for some.  I'm with GigaNews and I'd like to seem the
initiate something along these lines.

> The point is, fewer people will contribute to these forums as spam
> increases.  Ultimately, this spells the end of the medium.  It's sad.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> could be that we are seeing is just a test of the system for the
> upcoming deluge.

These are thick-headed marketers.  Fifteen thousandn spams per 1
purchase in which you've actively offended 14 thousand--sounds like
good odds to them.
Signature

Thank you and have a nice day.

Mr. Uh Clem - 13 Mar 2008 13:27 GMT
>  SuperNews may be
> useful for some.  I'm with GigaNews and I'd like to seem the initiate
> something along these lines.

GigaNews seems to have borged SuperNews.
http://www.criticalpath.net/en/76/news/?news=1116306

Not sure what the outcome of the assimilation will be.  :/

Signature

Clem
"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
             - Fudd's first law of opposition

Jolly Roger - 13 Mar 2008 22:11 GMT
> >  SuperNews may be
> > useful for some.  I'm with GigaNews and I'd like to seem the initiate
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Not sure what the outcome of the assimilation will be.  :/

Oh God.  They'd better not stop indexing XOVER headers, or I am *so*
switching providers...

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Lewis - 14 Mar 2008 01:57 GMT
In article
<jollyroger-5C1F9C.16110913032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,

> Oh God.  They'd better not stop indexing XOVER headers, or I am *so*
> switching providers..

Well, firstly of course they will.

Secondly, wassamatta with Xref?

Signature

Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

Dave Balderstone - 13 Mar 2008 01:33 GMT
> My ISP manager says that USENET is finished.

EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!

Signature

Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Lewis - 13 Mar 2008 01:44 GMT
> > These guys have really stunk the place up in a way I haven't seen before.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> My ISP manager says that USENET is finished.  He can't wait until the
> last few people stop using it so he can get rid of it.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

ahem

Hahahahahahahahahahahahhhahaaa@

> I may be mistaken, but it's my impression that USENET is the only place
> left where one can express an opinion without fear.  Most every website
> wants registration, and requires javascript.  

I dunno about without fear, if you say the wrong thing the US Government
will still hunt you down and kill you.  Er, I mean, send you away to a
nice comfy cell with lots of water buckets where you will never ever be
seen or heard from again.

But yeah, other than that you're pretty safe.

> Sorry, javascript is my pet peeve.

Some javascript stuff is awesome.  Some of my favorite sites use it.  
But my default condition is to not allow any of it.

> The point is, fewer people will contribute to these forums as spam
> increases.

How much sam you see is related to two things, your filters, and your
news service provider.

I see very little.  The Supernews guys see less.

My MTNW gets better about auto-tagging every day.

Signature

Bart: This is the worst day of my life.
Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.

Jeffrey Goldberg - 13 Mar 2008 04:20 GMT
[follow-up set]

> It's amazing how many groups have been taken over by chyneeze spammers.

I'm not seeing the spam in question (I use supernews) so I can't judge,
but keep in mind that a portion of the RBN (Russian Business Network) have
moved many of their operations to servers in China.  Also a lot of US
originated spam operations take over systems in foreign jurisdictions
(where sysadms have no clue as to what to do with an abuse report)

> Does anyone here remember a time when spammers were actively hunted
> down by zealous group members?  I see none of that anymore.

This is partially because the spammers have gotten so much better at what
they do that the skill level required to hunt down spammers has increased.
I used to pick a (email) spam operation or two every month and dedicate
time and effort to making things more difficult and expensive for them.
I no longer feel capable of doing so beyond promoting systems that make
life harder for spammers (DNSbls, SPF).  For Usenet, I gladly pay for
Supernews' effort at filtering and not passing on spam.

Another reason is that the hunt now can often lead to the Russian mafia.
While I doubt that anything I do would ever come to their attention, I'm
left with a paradox.  Either I'll never do anything that really hurts
their operations or in the extremely unlikely even that I will hurt
them, I will have something to be worried about.

Finally, and most importantly, people have learned that talking about spam
outside of the groups for that purpose can be more destructive to the
group than the spam itself.  Kind of like responding to trolls.

So news.admin.net-abuse.usenet is ---> that way.  (And follow-up set)

> My ISP manager says that USENET is finished.  He can't wait until the
> last few people stop using it so he can get rid of it.

Don't worry.  Fortran has to die first.

> I may be mistaken, but it's my impression that USENET is the only place
> left where one can express an opinion without fear.

Fear of what?  Fear of moderation?  There are totally unmoderated web
forums, which can be hosted in various jurisdictions.  But you'll find
that nobody want to read totally unmoderated forums.  If you read them,
you will see why.

> Most every website wants registration,

Nothing stops you from providing false information for registration.  All
you need is a throwaway email address (like spammers use).  Pick a webmail
host in one jurisdiction, a web forum in another, and use an anonymizing
proxy to read both.

> and requires javascript.
>
> Javascript is such a huge security risk and yet it's being forced on
> everyone [...]

> Sorry, javascript is my pet peeve.

On this, we agree.

-j

Signature

Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
 http://improve-usenet.org/

Warren Oates - 13 Mar 2008 12:07 GMT
In article
<alpine.OSX.1.00.0803122156350.1044@hagrid.ewd.goldmark.org>,

> > Sorry, javascript is my pet peeve.
>
> On this, we agree.

W3.org doesn't agree. The hysterical fanatics at w3.org have mandated
javascript everywhere in the name of "standards compliance." So, no more
"target" no more "object" no more "embed." Now you _have_ to use
javascript if you want to, say, open a new window from a link.

Please don't f.ck around with the followups. I don't read nanau, and I'm
not about to start.
Signature

W. Oates

Jeffrey Goldberg - 13 Mar 2008 17:01 GMT
>>> Sorry, javascript is my pet peeve.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "target" no more "object" no more "embed." Now you _have_ to use
> javascript if you want to, say, open a new window from a link.

Well, if the fanatics at w3.org are happy with Javascript, I will have to
revisit my thinking on this matter.

> Please don't f.ck around with the followups. I don't read nanau, and I'm
> not about to start.

I was using followups exactly the way God intended.

-j

Signature

Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
 http://improve-usenet.org/

Warren Oates - 14 Mar 2008 12:37 GMT
In article
<alpine.OSX.1.00.0803131059030.1044@hagrid.ewd.goldmark.org>,

> I was using followups exactly the way God intended.

We had that thread already, didn't we? Your God? My (non)God? Richard
Stallman's God?
Signature

W. Oates

Jeffrey Goldberg - 15 Mar 2008 03:46 GMT
>> I was using followups exactly the way God intended.

> We had that thread already, didn't we? Your God? My (non)God? Richard
> Stallman's God?

Gene Spafford.

-j

Signature

Jeffrey Goldberg                     http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
 I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
 http://improve-usenet.org/

GeeFive - 13 Mar 2008 05:24 GMT
Richard Maine wrote:

> GeeFive wrote:
> If you have been around Usenet very much, you should know that the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> is a "traditional" way to say this should tell you something.... which
> is sort of the idea This tradition is about 20 years old.

Okay, then, "Imminent death of Usenet predicted. Film at 11."

I've been on USENET daily since 1995.

Jolly Roger wrote:

> GeeFive wrote:
>
> > My ISP manager says that USENET is finished.  He can't wait until the
> > last few people stop using it so he can get rid of it.
>
> Hope he doesn't hold his breath.  ; )

I can only pass along what he said.  I suspect he's right -- not
because of a lack of demand, but for questionable content and the fact
that it's a way to communicate anonymously, which is increasingly under
fire.

gtr wrote:

GeeFive said:

> > The point is, fewer people will contribute to these forums as spam
> > increases.  Ultimately, this spells the end of the medium.  It's sad.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> purchase in which you've actively offended 14 thousand--sounds like
> good odds to them.

I agree.  Who the heck is that one idiot, anyway?

Dave Balderstone wrote:

> GeeFive wrote:
>
> > My ISP manager says that USENET is finished.
>
> EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!

Well, if it happens, who will be here to complain?  Once it's gone,
it's gone.  How many backbone servers does it take to eviscerate USENET
from the internet?  Besides, 99% (it may be more than that) of internet
users have never heard of USENET.  How many of them will strand up for
us.  So, no, there will be no panic, and we will be told that the
elimination of our forums saves the majority of customers money, which
will make a lot of folks happy.

Lewis wrote:

> GeeFive wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahhhahaaa@

Your laughing makes me laugh.  On the face of it, the prospect of the
demise of USENET seems far fetched when you haven't given it much
thought.  Seems laughable.  What he was referring to pertains to the
ISP he runs, so what he does might not be done universally.  Makes me
wonder, tho.

> > I may be mistaken, but it's my impression that USENET is the only place
> > left where one can express an opinion without fear.  Most every website
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> But yeah, other than that you're pretty safe.

It's not about hunting anyone down.  It's about hiding one's email
address in order to reduce the spam load.  But there are people at the
periphery who successfully hide everything about the true origin of
their messages.

And there's another factor.  The new crop of users are (generally
speaking) less polite, more profane, less dedicated, and ignorant or
disdainful of what's passed before on USENET.  I have to wonder what
sort of advocates they will be for USENET when the medium is challenged
by officialdom and the backbone.

> > Sorry, javascript is my pet peeve.
>
> Some javascript stuff is awesome.  Some of my favorite sites use it.  
> But my default condition is to not allow any of it.

A javascript programmer needs to make only a minor mistake in coding or
judgment to make life difficult for a lot of people.  Then there are
those with bad motives, and the possibilities are endless.  Not only
that, but I believe that the major component of cyber attack will be
through the use of scripting.  It's amazing how many people know not to
open a .exe file but have zero knowledge how they are exposed by
javascript.  The software industry has a vested interest in seeing to
it that browsers are javascript enabled unless someone knows to turn it
off, instead of the way it should be (disabled from the get-go, the
user needs to read a statement about vulnerability when he tries to
turn it on).

I've always hoped that others would see the wisdom of browsing w/o
javascript and start some kind of movement to defeat it.  If commercial
sites knew that 20% or more of their visits were javascript disabled,
then maybe they'd have a default page with HTML 4 and content instead
of a default page with HTML 4 and a message saying sorry.

> > The point is, fewer people will contribute to these forums as spam
> > increases.
>
> How much sam you see is related to two things, your filters, and your
> news service provider.

It was also related to the number of people fighting back.  Many groups
had contributors who spent a lot of time going after USENET spammers
and with great success.  The amount of spam you see is inversely
proportional to the numbers of these folks who have left USENET for
whatever reasons.  Now it seems like open season on us.

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

>GeeFive wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> originated spam operations take over systems in foreign jurisdictions
> (where sysadms have no clue as to what to do with an abuse report)

I don't know about RBN, but the routing of spam through chyna has been
going on for maybe 10 years, increasing every year.  I think it's
impossible to get through to anyone over there about this.

> > Does anyone here remember a time when spammers were actively hunted
> > down by zealous group members?  I see none of that anymore.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> life harder for spammers (DNSbls, SPF).  For Usenet, I gladly pay for
> Supernews' effort at filtering and not passing on spam.

I hear you.  I once went on the warpath but have given it up.

> Another reason is that the hunt now can often lead to the Russian...

Hadn't heard this.  Interesting.

> Finally, and most importantly, people have learned that talking about spam
> outside of the groups for that purpose can be more destructive to the
> group than the spam itself.  Kind of like responding to trolls.

And partly for that reason the groups will fill with spam and
discourage people from hanging around.  Another version of "Oh, you
don't want to buy a Mac because they're going out of business" is
"Forget about USENET, it's full of spam."  Just a thought.

> So news.admin.net-abuse.usenet is ---> that way.  (And follow-up set)
>
> > My ISP manager says that USENET is finished.  He can't wait until the
> > last few people stop using it so he can get rid of it.
>
> Don't worry.  Fortran has to die first.

:-) I remember using it on an IBM 360.  I think that Fortran is Spock's
internal thought process.

> > I may be mistaken, but it's my impression that USENET is the only place
> > left where one can express an opinion without fear.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> that nobody want to read totally unmoderated forums.  If you read them,
> you will see why.

No, not fear of moderation, but fear of having one's email address
appear here and so get harvested by spambots.  Moderation has never
bothered me.

> > Most every website wants registration,
>
> Nothing stops you from providing false information for registration.  All
> you need is a throwaway email address (like spammers use).  Pick a webmail
> host in one jurisdiction, a web forum in another, and use an anonymizing
> proxy to read both.

I've never been interested in doing this.  If you could be more
explicit, maybe it would be something I could do.  I used "The
Anonymizer," a service out of San Diego, but they changed from a simple
anonymizer w'o javascript to one where you need to use their
proprietary software, use javascript, and register.  What's anonymous
about that?  Unfortunately, I had just sent in a year's fees and I lost
that.

> > and requires javascript.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> On this, we agree.

I remember someone speculating that the "club card" movement was
invented by a professor at Stanford or UCLA, and he sent his disciples
out into industry with the idea and it caught on.  I feel the same way
about javascript.  Some professor came up with it and said "Look how
much we can do with this stuff, now all of you graduates get on out
there and use your information hungry clients and employers to foist
this on an unsuspecting public."
gtr - 13 Mar 2008 07:12 GMT
>> These are thick-headed marketers.  Fifteen thousandn spams per 1
>> purchase in which you've actively offended 14 thousand--sounds like
>> good odds to them.
>
> I agree.  Who the heck is that one idiot, anyway?

I don't know but I assume he REALLY needs som penis enlargement.
Signature

Thank you and have a nice day.

Jolly Roger - 13 Mar 2008 21:57 GMT
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> that it's a way to communicate anonymously, which is increasingly under
> fire.

Again, for his sake, I hope he doesn't hold his breath.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Nigel - 13 Mar 2008 01:26 GMT
> Well, much of it seemed to be Chinese for a while, but now it's
> branching out. Is that the title I'll be reading in the Times in a
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> This morning it looks about half and half: 7 marketing, 7 actual
> participants.  It's growing damned fast!

I agree the open relays are a problems and there is a heap more spam on both
USENET and via email these days.  Of course the biggest Spamers are not the
Chinese but the USA.

http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso

An while China is number 2 right now I suspect they will have the dubious
honour of number 1 sooner rather than later.

Nigel
gtr - 13 Mar 2008 01:42 GMT
> I agree the open relays are a problems and there is a heap more spam on both
> USENET and via email these days.  Of course the biggest Spamers are not the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> An while China is number 2 right now I suspect they will have the dubious
> honour of number 1 sooner rather than later.

I was referring to the sludge that has bumped up just over the past
couple of weeks.  That stuff seems to be Chinese.  But I don't really
care where it comes from.
Signature

Thank you and have a nice day.

Kevin McMurtrie - 13 Mar 2008 04:29 GMT
> Well, much of it seemed to be Chinese for a while, but now it's
> branching out. Is that the title I'll be reading in the Times in a
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> This morning it looks about half and half: 7 marketing, 7 actual
> participants.  It's growing damned fast!

You're talking about the shoe and sporting good spammer?

That would actually be Google's fault.  Google as a company refuses to
provide any kind of direct customer service.  That means that they will
not read complaints of crime, spamming, and exploited vulnerabilities in
their servers. They've rapidly become a favorite with crime gangs in the
past couple of years.  Filtering Google Groups drops the spam from 50%
to less than 1% for me.  They really need a UDP (Usenet Death Penalty).

Discard articles with the header
Organization: http://groups.google.com

All Gmail to me is rejected for the same reasons.  Anyone who thinks
that Google would make a good wireless provider is smoking crack.  The
billions of dollars worth of bandwidth will be owned by criminals.

Signature

I don't read Google's spam.  Reply with another service.

gtr - 13 Mar 2008 07:13 GMT
> You're talking about the shoe and sporting good spammer?
>
> That would actually be Google's fault.

Why is it Google's fault.  I'm not taking the feed from Google.
Signature

Thank you and have a nice day.

Kevin McMurtrie - 14 Mar 2008 04:29 GMT
> > You're talking about the shoe and sporting good spammer?
> >
> > That would actually be Google's fault.
>
> Why is it Google's fault.  I'm not taking the feed from Google.

Google is the point of entry for nearly all Usenet spam.

Signature

I don't read Google's spam.  Reply with another service.

Dave Balderstone - 14 Mar 2008 05:00 GMT
> > > You're talking about the shoe and sporting good spammer?
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Google is the point of entry for nearly all Usenet spam.

A slight exaggeration, but only slight.

Signature

Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Kevin McMurtrie - 15 Mar 2008 05:38 GMT
> > > > You're talking about the shoe and sporting good spammer?
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> A slight exaggeration, but only slight.

Google is #1 for text groups but they don't do binaries.

Signature

I don't read Google's spam.  Reply with another service.

Jolly Roger - 15 Mar 2008 06:19 GMT
> > > > > You're talking about the shoe and sporting good spammer?
> > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Google is #1 for text groups but they don't do binaries.

Google is #1 only on the list of the absolute _crappiest_ news clients
of all time.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Dave Balderstone - 15 Mar 2008 06:31 GMT
In article
<jollyroger-F45BC7.00190515032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,

> Google is #1 only on the list of the absolute _crappiest_ news clients
> of all time.

News providers. Google doesn't provide a client.

Signature

Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Jolly Roger - 15 Mar 2008 17:12 GMT
> In article
> <jollyroger-F45BC7.00190515032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> News providers. Google doesn't provide a client.

I consider their web interface to be their client.

Signature

Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail
sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.

JR

Burt Johnson - 13 Mar 2008 12:34 GMT
I use easynews, and haven't seen all that much of a problem.  Occasional
spams, but then I get that in my mail inbox too, depite my massive
filters.

I suspect you just need a better news feeder.

Signature

- Burt Johnson
 MindStorm, Inc.
 http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html

Melba's Jammin' - 15 Mar 2008 15:15 GMT
> Well, much of it seemed to be Chinese for a while, but now it's
> branching out. Is that the title I'll be reading in the Times in a
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> This morning it looks about half and half: 7 marketing, 7 actual
> participants.  It's growing damned fast!

I use NewsWatcher and setting a kill filter for "Organization:  contains
http://groups.google.com " has improved things dramatically.  It's
eliminating from my view 40-100 posts daily on rec.food.cooking.  I'm
much calmer now.
Signature

-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/amytaylor
Pray for the abatement of her pain.

gtr - 15 Mar 2008 16:01 GMT
>> Well, much of it seemed to be Chinese for a while, but now it's
>> branching out. Is that the title I'll be reading in the Times in a
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> eliminating from my view 40-100 posts daily on rec.food.cooking.  I'm
> much calmer now.

Yes, but that would knock back a lot of my friends in some groups, most
of whom seem to post that way.
Signature

Thank you and have a nice day.

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.