Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> We know the difference between what http://groups.google.com/g/<nameofng>
>> searches versus what http://google.com searches where the groups.google.com
>> search is _only_ inside that singular newsgroup...
>
> We do. But does the average user using (unqualified) Google searching
> for movies going to find web sites or news articles?

Much agree. That's what's so perplexing about this google-based M0VIE spam.

Much like the Nigerian bank-account scams, I suspect these spammers aren't
as dumb as they make themselves appear to be (which is originally why I had
suspected it was a rogue nntp server and not coming out of real Google
accounts).

If I put my tin-foil hat on, there's probably more to the story than what
we would at first conjecture - but - alas - I'm not privy to the details.

Unless Usenet group contents spill onto the normal google.com search
engine, nobody on Usenet is going to be making use of this M0VIE spamming.

Note: The "indonesian spam" usually contained a URL, which I had assumed,
sans clicking on it, was a phishing expedition where I assumed malware was
the catch.

I didn't even look at the M0VIE spam to see if there's a hidden payload.

> What if they use a different (unqualified) search engine?

You bring up a good point in that there are many search engines, e.g.,
metager, duckduckgo, yahoo, bing, etc., none of which have I personally
tested to see if Usenet content spills over into them. Probably does.

I'm certainly aware that my own content spills over into Google.com
searches - so why wouldn't Usenet content also spill into other engines.
> My point being that even searching for the exact phrase in one of the
> spam is going to be fairly unlikely to pop up on the first page of
> (unqualified) Google search results. And it's even less likely to pop
> up on the first page of some other search engine.

Yes. Agree. With the caveat above that when I know what I'm looking for, I
can find my own Usenet content in google.com searches, but there's also the
fact that "mirror" sites exist that "L@@K" like normal web sites.

For example, there's a homeowner DIY site somewhere that mirrors
alt.home.repair such that our Usenet posts to a.h.r "could" be found in a
normal search engine result but linked to _that_ web site specifically.

Same with Windows newsgroups, e.g., I created this link many years ago:
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-10>
Because the "natural" dejagoogle link did not (and still does not) exist:
<http://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.os.windows-10>
So it points to a "normal" web site that search engines can easily pick up:
<http://www.pcbanter.net/forumdisplay.php?f=52>

In summary, I suspect these M0VIE spammers are smarter than I can account
for, but I too have no idea what their ultimate goal appears to be.

Hell, for all I know they could be sending tin-foil-hat messages back and
forth between Russian:Hungarian:Belarussian TLA operatives embedding their
informative payload in the otherwise seemingly gibberitic M0VIE spam
scrambled eggs.
>> I'll just make a point that when I search on the normal google.com search
>> engine, I sometimes find my own tutorials showing up, especially when the
>> topic is esoteric...
>
> Yes, it is possible.

Yes. Not likely. But it happens. Particularly, IMHO, when the content has
few hits (although many of my automotive-repair tutorials are found on the
car sites in the first page of Google hits, which I find satisfying for
some strange reason). When I leave an automotive newsgroup (e.g., when I
total the vehicle), they actually hunt me down - so I've learned - over
time - that web sites know a lot more about you than you might think.

> I suspect that the plethora of much things for streaming movies will
> drown out such a Google Groups post so far past the first page that it's
> not even funny.

Much agreed. From the beginning, I thought there was more to this than just
someone wanting us to click on their movie link - but I'm not smart enough
(nor informed enough) to be clued in on their Nigerian M0VIE spam motive.

Note: For those who don't know, the Nigerian bank scammers actually killed
people (check out the state dept web site on them) who thought they were
smarter than the scammers - where the scammers purposefully filled out the
email making them look stupid - and seeming to be easily taken advantage
of, where in that case, their payload was to hook people far to the left of
the Dunning-Kruger first quartile line and slowly reel them in.

I don't feel like looking up the State Dept site on that but that's my
recollection, the point of that story being I suspect there's more to this
rampant M0VIE spam than meets the untrained eye (such as mine clearly is).
>> Which means...
>>
>> Usenet results can spill into the regular google.com search engine output;
>
> Yes, it is possible. I just think that it will be extremely unlikely
> given the context that the spam I've seen is advertising.

Agree. We are in full agreement. Either it's stupid. Or it's very smart.
And I'm not informed enough to tell the difference, unfortunately.
>> but (to my knowledge), web sites outside of Usenet/GoogleGroups do NOT
>> spill into the DejaGoogle search engine results.
>
> Agreed.

ACK (to borrow your borrowed terminology)

> But how many people will search inside of Google Groups Usenet gateway
> search for movies to download? The people that will actually do so will
> probably use a different search which is associated with their
> commercial Usenet provider.

Absolutely I agree. Hence, there's likely more to it, using Occam's Razor.
However, I'm not privy to the secret decoder ring that explains their MO.

> Sure, there will be a few people that try it and run into problems. But
> the people actually using Usenet to transfer binary content almost
> certainly aren't in the same group.

Yup. Either these M0VIE spammers are extremely naive; or we are.
Pick one. :)

>> If the spam wasn't there, DejaGoogle is rather useful for two purposes:
>> a. Looking things up BEFORE you post to a newsgroup, and,
>> b. Referencing an article by URI instead of by Message-ID
>
> I absolutely agree.

Note that I was incensed in one of these related threads when the likes of
the always-ignorant iKooks started claiming "they had no problem" and
therefore, "because they had no problem, there wasn't a problem".

The problem, as "I" see it, in my own thought processes, is that the
utility of the dejagoogle search engine results is almost destroyed.

If _that_ was their intent (which I doubt it was), then they succeeded.

They _could_ be out trying to destroy the GoogleGroupsUsenet portal; but
why would they want to do that? As always, the motive eludes me.
>> The beauty is that no newsreader is needed - and no account is needed.
>
> I'd like to think that some other news provider also provides a web
> interface.
>
> Though I don't know about the account part.
>
>> And article retention is, for our purposes, forever (so to speak).
>
> True enough.

Thanks for understanding as I participate daily on the child-like Apple
newsgroups and on the adult OS newsgroups also, where I have to explain the
simplest of things to them - which - luckily - isn't the case here.

In summary, I openly and humbly declare that I have no clue what the M0VIE
spam purpose is, but it's destroying the utility of the dejagoogle engine.

That's why I would ask everyone on the team to complain to Google the only
way they can that won't take an arm and a leg of effort, which is this URL:
<https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about>

Rest assured, I have done that about twenty times on twenty different VPNs
(and on quite a number of different web browsers to foil fingerprinting).
--
Usenet is a wonderful way to meet people who can enlighten you if your eyes
are open to being shown a completely different way of looking at the issue.

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> >On 12/13/23 15:57, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> This is not true. It has degraded since acquisition which is where the
> >> resentment of older Usenet users comes from.
> >
> >I maintain that the corpus of articles that Google acquired from Deja
> >News has not changed since the acquisition.
> >
> >Yes, the interface thereto has gotten worse and yes more has been added
> >to the newsgroups.
> >
> >But the articles as they existed in late 2000 still exist and have not
> >changed.
>
> This is possible, but we can't really know with the indices having been
> broken so badly. There are messages that I know were in the database
> in 2000 which I have copies of, but which I cannot find on google with any
> search. They might be there but I have to assume they aren't.

You may want to try with:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID&dmode=source" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID&dmode=source
or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID

Where MID is the message-id without any delimiters.

As I mentioned before, this works for my February 24, 1989 article.
(To preserve my privacy and those of others, I won't give the URL.)

This old form of URL apparently still works for some (only old?)
articles.

But it does not work for new articles. For example it does not work
(gives "You are not a member of any groups yet") for your article (the
one I am responding to), while that article *is* in Google Groups (I
just checked).

So if you have a copy of an old article and want to point to that
article in Google Groups, you may want to try if the above old form
URL works.

BTW, if you know the newsgroup and some other keywords of an article,
you may want to try the limited group-secific search which *does* still
exist:

https://groups.google.com/g/<group-name>
i.e.
https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet

See the search box at the top of such group pages.

[...]

On 12/14/23 08:09, Wally J wrote:
> I didn't even look at the M0VIE spam to see if there's a hidden
> payload.

The movie posts that I looked at it didn't seem to have any payload
beyond links to websites. I spent some time looking at the message
source and don't recall seeing anything other than annoying and unwanted
text.

I didn't go to any of the links to comment on what is there.

> For example, there's a homeowner DIY site somewhere that mirrors
> alt.home.repair such that our Usenet posts to a.h.r "could" be
> found in a normal search engine result but linked to _that_ web
> site specifically.

Agreed. But we're talking about a small number of groups and I am not
aware of them being spammed. But I don't subscribe to them.

I further suspect that a worth while admin of such a spam site would
take measure to filter out such spam.

> In summary, I suspect these M0VIE spammers are smarter than I can
> account for, but I too have no idea what their ultimate goal appears
> to be.

I still think that the multiple spammers are simply using software to
send messages and letting the program spin away. Or go Brrrrr as so
many memes are apt to say.

There may be a reason for it. Maybe it's a tactic against Google
wherein the account used to send spam to Usenet is also sending spam to
email and they are trying to offset the ratio of what is sent where;
email vs Usenet, in the hopes of making their Google account look less
spammy to Google algorithms.

What's being done to Usenet may simply be a spammers equivalent of
industrial plants heating rivers as a by-product of using the river
water to cool equipment. Meaning that the spam might be a 2nd order
effect / byproduct of their primary goal.

> Hell, for all I know they could be sending tin-foil-hat messages
> back and forth between Russian:Hungarian:Belarussian TLA operatives
> embedding their informative payload in the otherwise seemingly
> gibberitic M0VIE spam scrambled eggs.

The messages that I've seen are clusters that are too similar to be
different content to me.

That being said, maybe it's a form of steganography wherein the multiple
messages are redundancy.

> Absolutely I agree. Hence, there's likely more to it, using Occam's
> Razor. However, I'm not privy to the secret decoder ring that explains
> their MO.

My understanding of Occam's Razor + parsimony is that the simplest
explanation is the most likely explanation and we don't really need any
other explanation. To whit, I maintain that the simplest and thus most
likely explanation is that multiple actors are simply letting their spam
publishing software go Brrrrr and we're suffering because of their actions.

> They _could_ be out trying to destroy the GoogleGroupsUsenet portal;
> but why would they want to do that? As always, the motive eludes me.

That is a more complex intent.

That would imply that there was some benefit in doing it.

Occam's Razor + parsimony suggest that this isn't the motivation.

> Thanks for understanding as I participate daily on the child-like Apple
> newsgroups and on the adult OS newsgroups also, where I have to explain
> the simplest of things to them - which - luckily - isn't the case here.

ACK

> In summary, I openly and humbly declare that I have no clue what
> the M0VIE spam purpose is, but it's destroying the utility of the
> dejagoogle engine.

Agreed. And I'm sorry for it.

> Rest assured, I have done that about twenty times on twenty different
> VPNs (and on quite a number of different web browsers to foil
> fingerprinting).

Sadly, I think the multiple reports could be misconstrued and end up
being a dis-service.

I strongly suspect that Google would give much more credence to fewer
(longer lived and more active) accounts sending multiple reports (which
pass the sanity check) than reports from more (shorter lived and less
active) accounts.

After all, what's to differentiate burner accounts posting spam vs other
burner accounts complaining about spam from a burner account turf war?

--
Grant. . . .

On 12/14/23 09:11, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> This old form of URL apparently still works for some (only old?)
> articles.
>
> But it does not work for new articles. For example it does not work
> (gives "You are not a member of any groups yet") for your article (the
> one I am responding to), while that article *is* in Google Groups (I
> just checked).

I wonder if the indexing for that was performed by DeJa and Google
simply brought it forward but didn't continue creating said index.

The different behavior for articles posted at different times tends to
support Google being very inconsistent in what they do.

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> On 12/14/23 09:11, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > This old form of URL apparently still works for some (only old?)
> > articles.
> >
> > But it does not work for new articles. For example it does not work
> > (gives "You are not a member of any groups yet") for your article (the
> > one I am responding to), while that article *is* in Google Groups (I
> > just checked).
>
> I wonder if the indexing for that was performed by DeJa and Google
> simply brought it forward but didn't continue creating said index.

Well, according to my notes, the old form URL [1] worked at least upto
April 2008 (and probably as late as November 2018), so way after Google
bought Deja. So there was a time where Google did maintain that index.

> The different behavior for articles posted at different times tends to
> support Google being very inconsistent in what they do.

Indeed. For example this still finds (multiple occurences of) your
article (assuming logged into a Google account):

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/messageidAulf6be$aa6@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>

So the general form is:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/messageidAMID>

Where MID is the message-id without any delimiters.

So yes, Google made a royal mess of it and is still doing so! :-(

[1] <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID&dmode=source>

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> Absolutely I agree. Hence, there's likely more to it, using Occam's
>> Razor. However, I'm not privy to the secret decoder ring that explains
>> their MO.
>
> My understanding of Occam's Razor + parsimony is that the simplest
> explanation is the most likely explanation and we don't really need any
> other explanation. To whit, I maintain that the simplest and thus most
> likely explanation is that multiple actors are simply letting their spam
> publishing software go Brrrrr and we're suffering because of their actions.

Understood. The simplest motive is they're spamming because they can.

>> Rest assured, I have done that about twenty times on twenty different
>> VPNs (and on quite a number of different web browsers to foil
>> fingerprinting).
>
> Sadly, I think the multiple reports could be misconstrued and end up
> being a dis-service.
>
> I strongly suspect that Google would give much more credence to fewer
> (longer lived and more active) accounts sending multiple reports (which
> pass the sanity check) than reports from more (shorter lived and less
> active) accounts.
>
> After all, what's to differentiate burner accounts posting spam vs other
> burner accounts complaining about spam from a burner account turf war?

Oh. That's interesting. I never log into a Google Account when I'm online.
Yet, one certainly could post that complaint using their own accounts.

While I have plenty of accounts, it didn't even occur to me to log in
_before_ posting a complaint. Thanks for opening my eyes to that method,
which, I'm sure, is the one method most people would have used from the
start.

So the instructions to complain to Google become:

a. Log into your google account on your favorite web browser
b. Go here <https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about>
c. Press on the gear icon & select "Send feedback to Google"

Tell them the problem in your own words.
Thanks!

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> Indeed. For example this still finds (multiple occurences of) your
> article (assuming logged into a Google account)

I was going to mention that some of those MID URIs require being logged
into a Google Account, which Frank knows but maybe others might not.

So he's right when he says "(assuming logged into a Google account):".

Since I'm almost never logged into any Google account when I use Google
services, I immediately noticed these URIs Frank initially supplied failed.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID&dmode=source>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID>
They asked me to log into my Google Account (which I almost never do).

These, of course work without needing to be logged into a Google Account.
<http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
<http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
<http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
which is, after all, the beauty of the dejagoogle beast.
--
Usenet is a venue for intelligent people to widely share their knowledge.

This banner is now appearing on Google GRoups

Effective from 15 February 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content
from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data
will still be supported as it is done today.

They should pay every nntp server on top1000
US$1 000 000 000 000 for their incompetence!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

> I wonder if the indexing for that was performed by DeJa and Google
> simply brought it forward but didn't continue creating said index.
>
> The different behavior for articles posted at different times tends to
> support Google being very inconsistent in what they do.

I have no idea if this will help, but the "old" method still works.

To obtain the OLD URI, if you're quick, you can see it when you go here:
<http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android>

Note when I had created that tinyurl, the old syntax was the following:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.mobile.android>

Which currently will rather quickly redirect you to this simplified URL:
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>

Dunno if that adds value or not, as those are the old syntactical methods.

See also:
<https://tinyurl.com/news-admin-peering>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/news.admin.peering>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>

<https://tinyurl.com/news-admin-net-abuse-usenet>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote

> This banner is now appearing on Google GRoups

Yeah. I noticed it too and posted this thread about it.
*Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content*
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/_w1mbwzgzs0>

What that means is:
a. The ability to search before asking, will be greatly diminished.
b. The ability to reference a URI to a thread or post will disappear.
c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too

Sigh.
Maybe we asked for too much from Google?

--
The whole point of Usenet is to reach out to others to help them, and to
learn from them and then to add to the group's tribal knowledge for others.

In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote
>
>> This banner is now appearing on Google GRoups
>
>Yeah. I noticed it too and posted this thread about it.
> *Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
>Usenet content*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/_w1mbwzgzs0>
>
>What that means is:
>a. The ability to search before asking, will be greatly diminished.
>b. The ability to reference a URI to a thread or post will disappear.
>c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>

Bogus on c.

>Sigh.
>Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>

Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.

>--
>The whole point of Usenet is to reach out to others to help them, and to
>learn from them and then to add to the group's tribal knowledge for others.

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote

>>c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>>
>
> Bogus on c.

Hmmmmm. Pray tell please... how?

Maybe you know something I don't know about providing your mom, or your
non-technical neighbor, or your non-Usenetted coworker a read-only link to
almost any Usenet thread or article w/o using dejagoogle (and without
subjecting them to a HowardKnight search when nobody has the Message ID)?
--
And no, we won't give them the MessageID as they're not going to deal with
it (and nobody would have that Message-ID anyway, in a normal situation).

In article <ulgft5$3tfll$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote
>
>>>c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>>>
>>
>> Bogus on c.
>
>Hmmmmm. Pray tell please... how?
>
>Maybe you know something I don't know about providing your mom, or your
>non-technical neighbor, or your non-Usenetted coworker a read-only link to
>almost any Usenet thread or article w/o using dejagoogle (and without
>subjecting them to a HowardKnight search when nobody has the Message ID)?

Or a revival of interest!

>--
>And no, we won't give them the MessageID as they're not going to deal with
>it (and nobody would have that Message-ID anyway, in a normal situation).

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote:

> Wally J wrote:
>
>> What that means is:
>> a. The ability to search before asking, will be greatly diminished.
>> b. The ability to reference a URI to a thread or post will disappear.
>> c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>
> Bogus on c.

There'll be nothing *TO* read

"new content from Usenet peers will not appear"

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> > Indeed. For example this still finds (multiple occurences of) your
> > article (assuming logged into a Google account)
>
> I was going to mention that some of those MID URIs require being logged
> into a Google Account, which Frank knows but maybe others might not.
>
> So he's right when he says "(assuming logged into a Google account):".
>
> Since I'm almost never logged into any Google account when I use Google
> services, I immediately noticed these URIs Frank initially supplied failed.
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID&dmode=source>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID>
> They asked me to log into my Google Account (which I almost never do).

Given that Google Groups is going to be shut down for new Usenet
content, this issue is somewhat moot, but ...

As I wrote, the 'selm=MID&dmode=source' and 'selm=MID' form URLs work
for some (very?) *old* articles and do *not* work for new(er)/current
articles, so it's no wonder that you got an error.

However for the (very?) old articles for which the URLs work, you do
*not* have to logged into a Google Account.

> These, of course work without needing to be logged into a Google Account.
> <http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
> which is, after all, the beauty of the dejagoogle beast.

The point of the URL forms I gave (including the form for new articles
(which needs to be logged into a Google account)) is to display an
*article*, given *only* the message-id. The URLs you give, point to a
*newsgroup*, not to an article-by-message-id.

On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> Sigh.
>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>
>
> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.

To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

In article <ku2kurFp458U1@mid.individual.net>,
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> Wally J wrote:
>>
>>> What that means is:
>>> a. The ability to search before asking, will be greatly diminished.
>>> b. The ability to reference a URI to a thread or post will disappear.
>>> c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>>
>> Bogus on c.
>
>There'll be nothing *TO* read
>
>"new content from Usenet peers will not appear"

Try a REAL newsserver.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <ulhshm$1uv5a$1@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>> Sigh.
>>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>>
>>
>> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.
>
>To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.

https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam

>--
>user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

On 12/15/23 10:10, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <ulhshm$1uv5a$1@dont-email.me>,
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>> Sigh.
>>>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.
>>
>> To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.
>
> https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam
>

I said **tried**, not succeeded. My spam inbox has some suspicious stuff
that it caught.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

In article <ulhu93$1uv5b$11@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>On 12/15/23 10:10, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <ulhshm$1uv5a$1@dont-email.me>,
>> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>>>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>> Sigh.
>>>>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.
>>>
>>> To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.
>>
>> https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam
>>
>
>I said **tried**, not succeeded. My spam inbox has some suspicious stuff
>that it caught.

WEll I just use blackholes.

>--
>user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote

>>>>c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bogus on c.
>>
>>Hmmmmm. Pray tell please... how?
>>
>>Maybe you know something I don't know about providing your mom, or your
>>non-technical neighbor, or your non-Usenetted coworker a read-only link to
>>almost any Usenet thread or article w/o using dejagoogle (and without
>>subjecting them to a HowardKnight search when nobody has the Message ID)?
>
> Or a revival of interest!

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your reply. No big deal... but...

I'm trying to faithfully understand your response to when I said this:
"c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to read Usenet will go away too"

You summarily & curtly discounted that observation with this:
"Bogus on c."

I'll agree with any logically sensible opinion based on fact.
Especially when you folks (n.a.p. & n.a.n-a.u) know much more than I do.

I think "c" is valid given one of the values of the dejagoogle archive was
that people who have nothing (per se) to do with Usenet, can read them.

1. They can search them...
2. They can click on a thread or article URI sent to them...
3. Therefore they can read Usenet articles using only a web browser
a. No nntp service required
b. No nntp newsreader required
4. On any platform

To me, that's a big deal since we _lose_ that capability in February.
Unless we can find a replacement to the dejagoogle archives.

The "closest" (which sucks by the way) archive I can find is this:
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>

Let's work together to find a suitable replacement for dejagoogle.
--
I'm not on Usenet for my amusement; I'm here to learn what others know.
And if I can improve the discussion, I always try to add additinal value.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote

>> Bogus on c.
>
> There'll be nothing *TO* read
>
> "new content from Usenet peers will not appear"

Every action we do should help the average person in addition to ourselves.

Thanks Andy for explaining the probable thought process of "The Doctor"
(where you are one of the few people who post to the Android newsgroup who
know more about Android than I'll ever be able to learn in my lifetime).

I'm sure folks like "The Doctor" know more about Usenet than I'll ever
know, which is why I was faithfully trying to understand his point of view.

I'm not on Usenet for may amusement - I'm here to learn and to teach,
so it's important that I understand others - especially when they disagree
(because that may mean I'm wrong on my own understanding of the facts).

Thanks for explaining that the point of view of "The Doctor" was likely
that the only thing people outside of Usenet (like our own mothers) would
be able to read is _old_ content (after February 15th of 2024 anyway).

This is true only if we can't find a suitable replacement web archive.
I'm hoping those who know Usenet better than I will find that replacement.
--
Every action we do should help the average person in addition to ourselves.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote

>>> Bogus on c.
>>
>>There'll be nothing *TO* read
>>
>>"new content from Usenet peers will not appear"
>
> Try a REAL newsserver.

This isn't about us.
It's about them.

Nobody reading this thread will have a problem but EVERYONE who is reading
this thread has a mother or neighbor or coworker who NEEDS the information
we post to Usenet which we can easily get to them using a simple URL.

They can then read Usenet without having to know the technical details.

Unless "The Doctor" knows something I don't know, "trying a real
newsserver" won't work for that average person who doesn't know what Usenet
is and who doesn't have a newsreader - nor a news server to use it on.

*How do we reference information on Usenet to non-technical people?*

We can get that information.
But we can't get that information to THEM.

For example, I can send YOU a message id and you know what to do with it.
But I can't send THEM a message id - it would be patently absurd to do so.

Up until 20240215, THEY can read Usenet on any platform using any browser.
After 20240215, the only general-use news archive that I know of is...
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>

But it sucks, mostly because I can never get the search to work reliably.
Can you?
--
Usenet is a wonderful medium for intelligent people to meet each other.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> Given that Google Groups is going to be shut down for new Usenet
> content, this issue is somewhat moot, but ...

Agreed, as I'll agree with anyone who posits a sensibly logical assessment.

> As I wrote, the 'selm=MID&dmode=source' and 'selm=MID' form URLs work
> for some (very?) *old* articles and do *not* work for new(er)/current
> articles, so it's no wonder that you got an error.

Ah. I see. My mistake. I'm sorry. I apologize. I didn't get the main point.

> However for the (very?) old articles for which the URLs work, you do
> *not* have to logged into a Google Account.

I only tried it and it failed, but my assessment of why it failed was
apparently incorrect as I had "assumed" it failed due to the login alone.

Thanks for taking the time and energy and patience to clarify my mistake.

>> These, of course work without needing to be logged into a Google Account.
>> <http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
>> <http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
>> <http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
>> which is, after all, the beauty of the dejagoogle beast.
>
> The point of the URL forms I gave (including the form for new articles
> (which needs to be logged into a Google account)) is to display an
> *article*, given *only* the message-id.

Thank you for clarifying what the main point of the example was.
That's wonderful that the Message-ID could be searched on old dejagoogles.

Sorry for making the wrong assessment of the facts.
Mea culpa.

> The URLs you give, point to a
> *newsgroup*, not to an article-by-message-id.

Until this moment, I had never realized you could search the (old)
dejagoogle archives with a message-ID, so this is nice to know.

Back to your original line above, it may not matter in a few months.
--
On Usenet you can disagree & then learn from the subsequent clarification.

On 12/15/23 11:31, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <ulhu93$1uv5b$11@dont-email.me>,
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 12/15/23 10:10, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <ulhshm$1uv5a$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>>>>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>> Sigh.
>>>>>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.
>>>
>>> https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam
>>>
>>
>> I said **tried**, not succeeded. My spam inbox has some suspicious stuff
>> that it caught.
>
> WEll I just use blackholes.

But aren't those in space?

(also side question why do you write "well" like that?)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom