DAMN YOU, GOOGLE!

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:11:13 +0000, Jürgen Exner wrote:

ray wrote:
Sure. Maybe sometime you could explain to me just what it is that google
has to do with usenet news groups.

Since they bought DejaNews they are providing a WWW-based interface to
Usenet. This on its own is not necessarily bad.

However they are deliberately blurring the line between Usent and their
own web forum GoogleGroups, such that many people don't even understand
that Usenet has nothing to do with Google. This is why Google has often
been called the new AOL.

And they refuse to do anything about the spam that is injected into
Usenet _via_THEIR_service_. In particular the latter is a clear
violation of their corporate slogan and has triggered the wrath of many
people.

jue

Thanks for the info. I've never used them - I use pan for accessing usenet
groups, along with news.individual.net.

ray wrote:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:15:51 +0000, GregS wrote:

In article , ray
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:34:38 +0000, m II wrote:

I've been forwarding all of the Chinese garbage to


If everyone here and everywhere else started doing it, the idiots at
Google may get the message.

I wouldn't mind if the stupid spam were restricted to Google Users,
but the regular NNTP servers get the same garbage.

This group is getting unusable and my filter isn't too easy to adapt.




mike

Sure. Maybe sometime you could explain to me just what it is that google
has to do with usenet news groups.

They store most all the USENET archieve which is a very important
tthing.

So do other news servers.

Google is an *archive*. The other *servers* to which you refer do not
have archival retention.

They are also a USNET interface.

And there are others, as well.

And the other webified NNTP interfaces suck as well. I don't care about
them sucking for the users; I care that they remove the users from Usenet
so that they don't absorb the real experience and learn its conventions.

Its very handy to reply to Usenet after you find what you are searching
for using Google's USENET Archieve. Can't use Deja News anymore.

OK, so I use pan.

Good choice. Although I'm sticking with the perfectly reliable and
full-featured old version until the new start catches up with it.

Such as quoted by Wikepidia "The search facilities transformed Usenet
from a loosely organized and ephemeral communication tool into a valued
information repository"

The archive is fine. It's the ability for morons to post through it that
sucks.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

ray wrote:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:11:13 +0000, Jürgen Exner wrote:

ray wrote:
Sure. Maybe sometime you could explain to me just what it is that
google has to do with usenet news groups.

Since they bought DejaNews they are providing a WWW-based interface to
Usenet. This on its own is not necessarily bad.

However they are deliberately blurring the line between Usent and their
own web forum GoogleGroups, such that many people don't even understand
that Usenet has nothing to do with Google. This is why Google has often
been called the new AOL.

And they refuse to do anything about the spam that is injected into
Usenet _via_THEIR_service_. In particular the latter is a clear
violation of their corporate slogan and has triggered the wrath of many
people.

jue

Thanks for the info. I've never used them - I use pan for accessing
usenet groups, along with news.individual.net.

I just high-fived you on Pan, in a reply to another post. Now I should
acknowkedge your choice of n.i.n as well; it's rock solid. And bit more
than a dollar US a *year* -- 10 euros. Of course there are good free
servers, too. Both are reasons why the Google Gropers' wail "But my ISP
doesn't carry Usenet any more!" is meaningless. Like their other excuses.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

In article 55oJj.5204$lV1.2528@trndny06,
JT's Ghost wrote:

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

In article y7ZIj.15245$pb5.1593@edtnps89, m II wrote:

I've been forwarding all of the Chinese garbage to

If everyone here and everywhere else started doing it, the idiots at
Google may get the message.

I wouldn't mind if the stupid spam were restricted to Google Users, but
the regular NNTP servers get the same garbage.

This group is getting unusable and my filter isn't too easy to adapt.




mike

Google does not accept abuse complaints. None. It's years of that
attitude that has lead to such spam floods.

I just got switched from Supernews to Highwinds. I can no longer fetch
headers for filtering Google spam and I can't convince Highwinds of the
obvious need for a UDP. What a useless service.


Kevin,

Highlight the text and drag/drop it into your MT-NewsWatcher filter list:

#
# These filters were exported from MT-NewsWatcher
#
# Version: 3.5.2
# Date: Friday, April 4, 2008
#
# You can drag this text into the Filters window of MT-NewsWatcher
# to import these filters.
#
GROUP=.
KEPT=kFalse
#
STRING=googlegroups.com
HEADER=Message-ID
MATCH=kContainsTheString
IGNORECASE=kTrue
SCORE=0
LABEL=33
#

NewsWatcher grabs the Message ID line as part of Xover header info for
each newsgroup that you read... It doesn't take any extra time to fetch
the info. My email addy works should you need to ask any questions away
from the group.

- JT
hope this helps

I created one manually and it works. Over half of today's postings
vanished and I see real content again. Sweet.

--
Google - The top provider of Usenet spam and criminal activity.
Block Google and enjoy your Internet again.

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

--
Google - The top provider of Usenet spam and criminal activity.
Block Google and enjoy your Internet again.

Nice sig, Kevin.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

"Kevin McMurtrie" wrote

I created one manually and it works. Over half of today's postings
vanished and I see real content again. Sweet.

Trouble is, half the 'real content' is about how to get rid of Google!

Paul

Paul Bartram wrote:


"Kevin McMurtrie" wrote

I created one manually and it works. Over half of today's postings
vanished and I see real content again. Sweet.

Trouble is, half the 'real content' is about how to get rid of Google!

Yes, that's been a problem. I've been waiting to see that traffic dimish
as the people who are going to filter have got their filters in place.
And it's happened.

So in the long run it's positive -- the temporary and beneficial
off-topic traffic has lead to a more enjoyable group for many.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

In article hm5Kj.2376$Oa2.1846@trndny06, JT's Ghost
wrote:

53 Articles this morning, 7 killed outright for spam content... Articles
dealing with improving the signal-to-noise ratio 4. 6 Articles from
"clowns" having been, or in need of filtering. I'd say that overall this
groups readability has improved dramatically... AFWIW, I'm now working
on white-listing those posters who continually provide "topical" content.

I have not noticed any posts to white list in two days. I put a filter
on to label the google posts and move them to the bottom and it looks
like almost all of the google posts the last two days were spam. I
think there was one poster who used google for a real post and I don't
see much reason to white list him.

--
Charles

In article pm6Kj.654$Xy2.153@trndny04, JT's Ghost
wrote:

I'm talking about posters, not necessarily article postings... Those
posters regardless of where the post originates from, that generally
offer sound advice to questions asked. And this is somewhat subjective,
and probably varies from person to person, so I'm not going to list them
here.

That is what I meant, posters. What I mean is that there does not seem
to be that many real posters, as opposed to spammers posting, using
google groups. So it is not going to be that difficult to white list
anyone that I choose subjectively to white list. It is not going to be
a huge list. I think it is worth white listing rather than taking the
attitude that all google groups posters are lame and doing a blanket
filtering of them out along with the junk.

--
Charles

In article ,
"Paul Bartram" p.bartram AT OR NEAR mysoul.com.au wrote:

"Kevin McMurtrie" wrote

I created one manually and it works. Over half of today's postings
vanished and I see real content again. Sweet.

Trouble is, half the 'real content' is about how to get rid of Google!

Paul

Lucky you. I was seeing 150 to 450 Google spams a DAY in this ONE
group. Others I read had 5 to 80 Google spams a day. It's definitely a
better experience with Google filtered. I can actually find postings
about photography now.

--
Block Google's spam and enjoy Usenet again.
Reply with Google and I won't hear from you.