If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sony cyber shot digital cameras – The pioneers in technology
Bob Larter a écrit :
Jeez, what is it with the amount of spam these days? I've never seen so much spam in the rec.* & sci.* hierarchies as we've been getting lately. You should use a server with Cleanfeed and NoCeM installed, the amount of spam would be really anecdotal. The real issue here is the lack of action from google groups (previously dejanews -- a time when abuses where handled correctly) which is more and more annoying (the spam volume is something around 100,000 spams per month now) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sony cyber shot digital cameras – The pioneers in technology
Peter J Ross a écrit :
Bob is a former news admin, and I'm sure he's capable of using filters if he wants to. But he wants to solve the problem for other people, not only for himself, which I suppose is why we're all posting and reading here. Well, yes, unfortunately (too) biggest news servers admins never write (nor probably read) in nanau. Who cares ? Usenet is just a way to download pirates movies and p0rn for many ISP - some of them seems to be unaware that _text_ groups also exist. Binaries are not a problem IMHO (not a problem "as such"), except when they are the _only_ reason some providers are interested in Usenet: their admins are then just not interested by preventing spam from their customers (after all, a spammer _is_ a customer) not to filter anything (after all, the binary news client just don't care about spams) ISTM to be an established fact that Google deserves a UDP. But only small Usenet providers would be interested enough to enforce it. What is a "big" usenet provider, after all ? "Biggest" news servers are only anecdotal for text traffic (even if they share petabytes of binaries) My vision of Usenet's future involves the small Usenet providers ganging up to exclude the spam-tolerant big providers. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sony cyber shot digital cameras – The pioneers in technology
Peter J Ross a écrit :
Stop being so depressed about it. Not depressed, realistic. OTOH, being realistic over these "binary providers" can help to find a solution to the problem: what would happen if those bad servers were banned ? Usenet is a place where people like you and me can have conversations not only with each other but also with total strangers who wish to join in. Sure, agree. No one has even nearly half of this freedom on online web forums. Not to mention an important point: online forums (/blogs/..) disappear very quickly -- usenet is probably there for a century again. Binaries (and binaries newsgroups) aren't a problem, I agree - unless one makes the mistake of treating the binaries groups as if they were an integral part of Usenet, instead of a mere disposable extra. Yep. On an idealistic world of usenet, binary groups could have been the support for a "enriched" (excuse the bad English) content ; for example "attaching" an image to an usenet post that could be optionnally downloaded, without overloading text-only servers/clients. Well, probably not for tomorrow A "big" provider, IMO, is one that offers binaries groups to its users. But there are plenty of text-only providers (Motzarella, Albasani and AIOE to name but three) who are kind enough to facilitate discussion instead of theft. Well, and they also probable have much more (text) traffic that many "BIG" commercial ISP, OTOH. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sony cyber shot digital cameras – Thepioneers in technology
Peter J Ross wrote:
[] I've been saying for about two years that the small text-only Usenet providers (such as Motzarella, Albasani, AIOE and Individual.Net) ought to cut themselves off from the binaries providers and offer only *real* Usenet, unpolluted by morons, instead. I think if you /had/ to pay for a text-only news service, it would be the final blow, and would do nothing to discourage morons. I think that you /should/ have to pay for a binary service. David |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sony cyber shot digital cameras – Thepioneers in technology
Bob Larter wrote:
Xavier Roche wrote: Peter J Ross a écrit : Stop being so depressed about it. Not depressed, realistic. OTOH, being realistic over these "binary providers" can help to find a solution to the problem: what would happen if those bad servers were banned ? Or just banned from the text-only newsgroups, which is a much more achievable proposition. I'm doing that now with a certain heirarchy that they are spamming the **** out of. Turns out they were the only ones using it. # if ($gr{adult}) { if ($hdr{Path} =~ /$reject_xpath/) { $cnt_xpath++; return reject("Reject X: Path ($&) tm:$run_tm tl:$cnt_xpath From: $hdr{From} $hdr{Newsgroups} Subject: $hdr{Subject}", "Reject xpath"); }; }; # |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sony cyber shot digital cameras – The pioneers in technology
Peter J Ross a écrit :
Not depressed, realistic. OTOH, being realistic over these "binary providers" can help to find a solution to the problem: what would happen if those bad servers were banned ? You and I would no longer have to read posts sent from such servers. Well, I meant that those servers were not so big, considering their text part. Unplugging them would probably be totally unnoticeable. Ugh. Let's not do that. Usenet is for TEXT ONLY. Well, otoh you could consider the binary part as optional - a service that would allow to include binaries within _text_ article Okay, this is definitely not a mature idea, but who knows .. I foresee a future where you and I will be running a slimmer, faster, eaasier version of INN on our desktop machines. Humm, INN2 can run on very small servers, actually - the only "heavy" part is the new.daily process, which can take some time depending on the storage system used. And the bandwidth required is something like 5KB/s, something that probably many people can afford. will be a topic for oldbies to discuss nostalgically, but news.xavier.cc and news.pjr.bz will be two of the thousands of Usenet providers who can't easily be shut down by The Man. Well, why not news.xavier and news.pjr ? Considering the ICANN recent bad practices, it's only a matter of time to get TLD names without any restrictions And spammers won't have a ****ing hope on *our* servers. Well, yes, but what to do for all newbies using bad servers (and/or using a famous web interface) ? Usenet was not intended for newbies only, after all (yes, I remember the eternal september) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sony cyber shot digital cameras – Thepioneers in technology
Bob Larter a écrit :
Ditto. It costs serious money to run a full-binaries news server. Any hobbyist with a clue & a fast connection can run a text-only news server. Agree - peering requirements for binary servers are generally totally crazy (latency ping within few milliseconds on selected datacenters, huge bandwidth, balanced peering required, and so on..) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sony cyber shot digital cameras – The pioneers in technology
Bob Larter a écrit :
Or just banned from the text-only newsgroups, which is a much more achievable proposition. Humm, if only this could be achieved.. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sony cyber shot digital cameras – The pioneers in technology
Bob Larter a écrit :
The biggest issue is that _many_ people are using google groups - Too bad for them. Mostly, people posting to technical groups from Google are either spammers or idiots. Well, OTOH, people posting to -say- a cooking group are not necessarily technical folks (and they shouldn't be - at least on the computing side) ; that's too bad that the most "accessible" interface (ie. the famous web one) is so terrible. Run some stats on a newsfeed. Google isn't that big a deal, much as they'd like you to think otherwise. On my side, during the last 168 hours, google groups 15% (111265 articles, 4240 spams) giganews 2% teranews 0% newshosting 0% newsfeeds 0% (and many unknown) That's 15% -- not something you can just ignore. Yes, too bad users can not use a better service, I agree at 100.00% |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Sony cyber shot digital cameras – Thepioneers in technology
Xavier Roche wrote:
Bob Larter a écrit : The biggest issue is that _many_ people are using google groups - Too bad for them. Mostly, people posting to technical groups from Google are either spammers or idiots. Well, OTOH, people posting to -say- a cooking group are not necessarily technical folks (and they shouldn't be - at least on the computing side) ; that's too bad that the most "accessible" interface (ie. the famous web one) is so terrible. Run some stats on a newsfeed. Google isn't that big a deal, much as they'd like you to think otherwise. On my side, during the last 168 hours, google groups 15% (111265 articles, 4240 spams) giganews 2% teranews 0% newshosting 0% newsfeeds 0% (and many unknown) That's 15% -- not something you can just ignore. Yes, too bad users can not use a better service, I agree at 100.00% How is "spam" defined here? EMP, NoCeM cancels or what? And what are you using to do this? It would be nice if cleanfeed could output stats like that. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sony cyber shot digital cameras – The pioneers in technology | Mr. Strat | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | May 28th 09 09:17 PM |
Digital Zoom Function on the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W200 | Moviemaker | Digital Photography | 1 | June 27th 07 01:06 AM |
FA: Sony Digital (Monitor/Camera) Cyber-shot 5.1 Megapixel NIB | FA | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | August 17th 05 09:59 PM |
FS: SONY DSC-S75 3.3 MEGAPIXELS CYBER-SHOT DIGITAL CAMERA. | MF | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | August 2nd 04 08:39 PM |
FS: SONY DSC-S75 3.3 MEGAPIXELS CYBER-SHOT DIGITAL CAMERA. | MF | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | May 8th 04 01:49 AM |