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