Sony cyber shot digital cameras – The pioneers in technology

Kelb tal-Fenek a écrit :
How is "spam" defined here?

NoCeM. There are probably many more of them, so the stats are a bit
underestimated regarding the spam threshold.

And what are you using to do this?

Raw stats from a script which counts the number of spams spotted in
nocem and the rest. Probably not totally accurate, though.

Xavier Roche wrote:
Kelb tal-Fenek a écrit :
How is "spam" defined here?

NoCeM. There are probably many more of them, so the stats are a bit
underestimated regarding the spam threshold.

And what are you using to do this?

Raw stats from a script which counts the number of spams spotted in
nocem and the rest. Probably not totally accurate, though.

Yeah we could debate what is spam and what isn't until the cows come
home. What I'm interested in is where it's coming from mainly. I'd
like to see more stats. Knowledge is power.

On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:01:43 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

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



Eric Stevens

Xavier Roche writes:

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 ..

Is there any reason for this other than "we can"? Back in the day of UUCP
Usenet, this was useful, but given the umpteen different ways we can send and
host binary files now, I see it as using a Model-T instead of a Bullet Train.

Go back to text only.
--


Pete Ashdown http://pashdown.org Salt Lake City, Utah
XMission Internet Access - http://xmission.com - Voice: 801 539 0852

In article ,
Xavier Roche wrote:
Bob Larter a écrit :
I've had discussions with Googles newspeers with a view to getting them
de-peered for failing to deal with their spam/net-abuse problems, but it

The biggest issue is that _many_ people are using google groups -
de-peering one of the biggest news server (I mean, text news server) is
probably very difficult.

Send articles to them; that's useful (it helps other people find
them). Just be very suspicious of what they emit, and anything else
you receive from them. Legitimate articles will have no trouble
flooding around them. (If that hurts them in the statistics game, who
cares?)

Seth

In article , Kelb tal-Fenek wrote:

Yeah we could debate what is spam and what isn't until the cows come
home.

You could, maybe, but the rest of us [tinrou] consider that a settled
issue.

Seth

On May 30, Xavier Roche wrote:
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..

It's *technically* possible. The main problem is the (un)willingness
of News admins, especially the peers of the bad servers, and to a
certain extent *their* peers.

What about extending Seth' point about just sending articles *to*
them, but being strict about receiving articles *from* them, by posting
monthly lists of all bad/UDP-ed servers *to* all (text-only) newsgroups,
and blocking all articles *from* these servers? That way the users of
those bad servers would know that their posts have no/little propagation
and that they should look for a better (text) NSP, and the rest of us
would happily live without all the spam.