On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 21:14:24 -0600
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> On 2/25/24 10:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > The recent massive Usenet abuse from Google Groups finally made the
> > public aware of something Google had been failing to do for years,
> > run a Usenet site like a good actor. It caused Google embarassment in
> > front of a public that for the most part of ignorant of the existence
> > of Usenet.
>
> I don't think that it did cause any embarrassment for Google. You can't
> be embarrassed by something if you don't care about it.

Indeed. Google probably wouldn't care much if someone depeered them which
contradicts what you wrote earlier :

Google is one of those entities that almost everybody is afraid of going
up against. This means that most people were unwilling to depeer (not
that they need to any more) or filter email from Google, because Google!

Filtering email is a different discussion but why anyone would be afraid of
depeering googlegroups ? The only practical consideration was that enough
legitimate people were posting through googlegroups. But this still doesn't
justify directly peering with them. A news admin might refrain from
filtering googlegroups but still not want the bad image of directly peering
with what was by far the greatest source of spam on usenet.

On 2024-02-26, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> On 2/25/24 10:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> How does that work? You are operating SpamAssasin as an email abuse
>> countermeasure and you tell it NOT to filter any email originating
>> from Gmail because you are afraid of reprisals from Google?
>
> There are people that do that.
>
> There are also a lot of people that will block list a small mom & pop
> ISP that would never dare to block Google. What's really sad is that
> most mom & pop ISPs actually care a LOT more than Google has ever cared;
> both about quality of their service and making sure that their user base
> isn't doing something unfavorable.
>
>> The recent massive Usenet abuse from Google Groups finally made the
>> public aware of something Google had been failing to do for years,
>> run a Usenet site like a good actor. It caused Google embarassment in
>> front of a public that for the most part of ignorant of the existence
>> of Usenet.
>
> I don't think that it did cause any embarrassment for Google. You can't
> be embarrassed by something if you don't care about it.
>
>> I must have missed the news that the Google assasination squad took
>> out any of the people that we know.
>
> ?
>
>> I don't recall what search Microsoft offered. Yahoo was fantastic
>> because they were offering a directory service edited by human beings.
>
> Yahoo started as a hand curated directory but switched away from that by
> the early '00s.
>
>> In olden days before the Web, we had the Gopher protocol which
>> was... a high quality directory service edited by human beings. ftp
>> sites were forced to make an attempt at logical organization because
>> finding the file you needed to download was difficult enough. The Web
>> didn't require a directory to function so too many Web sites were set
>> up without logical structure. That's where search engines come in,
>> but indexing doesn't impose structure.
>
> I'd argue that sites should still try to provide a logical layout.

Agreed.
I'd also add that same-site navigation (where the url is the same and
some js controls the interface) is the WORST because its always so slow
and you can't just bookmark the spot you want to access because its all
js.

>
>> Google search doesn't exactly make it easy to find what you need. I'd
>> rather start with a directory but Google made those go away. Google's
>> advertising model appears to be the more bad hits we present, the
>> more ads we serve. It's a negative incentive.
>
> I cuss at Google less now that I avoid them when I can reasonably do so.

Same, I use DDG. Still kinda stuck on gmail tho.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 18:52:21 +0000, Todd M. McComb wrote:

> In article <urap66$dga$1@hope.eyrie.org>,
> Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:
>>Google inherited the Dejanews peerings.
>
> Now that I posted that, I realize my memory isn't so clear on this part
> either. Actually, and I may be wrong, I think that Google first bought
> another "news" startup -- and that's where the guy we met with came from
> -- and then Deja soon after. Either way, they had existing peering.
>
> (To state the obvious, we were NDA'd like crazy for that meeting. I'm
> probably breaking it now!)

:)

Fascinating to read some of the history from those involved in it. Thanks
for sharing.

It's certainly changing times for Usenet and while spammers have not
totally gone from the scene (by any measure) it will be interesting to see
if this subsidence in spam actually aids interest / adoption in Usenet as
a space to chat and exchange ideas in good old plain text again :)

I remain hopeful, and it's nice to see others still active in Usenet doing
the same :)

--
Agency News | news.bbs.nz

Kerr Avon <avon@bbs.nz.invalid> wrote at 08:49 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 18:52:21 +0000, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>
>> In article <urap66$dga$1@hope.eyrie.org>,
>> Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:
>>>Google inherited the Dejanews peerings.
>>
>> Now that I posted that, I realize my memory isn't so clear on this part
>> either. Actually, and I may be wrong, I think that Google first bought
>> another "news" startup -- and that's where the guy we met with came from
>> -- and then Deja soon after. Either way, they had existing peering.
>>
>> (To state the obvious, we were NDA'd like crazy for that meeting. I'm
>> probably breaking it now!)
>
>:)
>
> Fascinating to read some of the history from those involved in it. Thanks
> for sharing.
>
> It's certainly changing times for Usenet and while spammers have not
> totally gone from the scene (by any measure) it will be interesting to see
> if this subsidence in spam actually aids interest / adoption in Usenet as
> a space to chat and exchange ideas in good old plain text again :)
>
> I remain hopeful, and it's nice to see others still active in Usenet doing
> the same :)

Cheers to that!
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

In article <urms3l$158$1@news.bbs.nz>, Kerr Avon <avon@bbs.nz.invalid> wrote:
>... it will be interesting to see if this subsidence in spam
>actually aids interest / adoption in Usenet as a space to chat and
>exchange ideas in good old plain text again :)

Whether spam per se changes very much -- aside from the recent
explosion -- there's more likely to be recognition that Usenet is
something different, and not only e.g. a part of Google. So I
think that may be an opportunity, bringing some clarity.

On 2024-02-28, candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
> Kerr Avon <avon@bbs.nz.invalid> wrote at 08:49 this Wednesday (GMT):
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 18:52:21 +0000, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>>
>>> In article <urap66$dga$1@hope.eyrie.org>,
>>> Todd M. McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:
>>>>Google inherited the Dejanews peerings.
>>>
>>> Now that I posted that, I realize my memory isn't so clear on this part
>>> either. Actually, and I may be wrong, I think that Google first bought
>>> another "news" startup -- and that's where the guy we met with came from
>>> -- and then Deja soon after. Either way, they had existing peering.
>>>
>>> (To state the obvious, we were NDA'd like crazy for that meeting. I'm
>>> probably breaking it now!)
>>
>>:)
>>
>> Fascinating to read some of the history from those involved in it. Thanks
>> for sharing.
>>
>> It's certainly changing times for Usenet and while spammers have not
>> totally gone from the scene (by any measure) it will be interesting to see
>> if this subsidence in spam actually aids interest / adoption in Usenet as
>> a space to chat and exchange ideas in good old plain text again :)
>>
>> I remain hopeful, and it's nice to see others still active in Usenet doing
>> the same :)
>
> Cheers to that!

Cheers and +1

--
- {gemini,https}://{,rek2.}hispagatos.org - mastodon: @rek2@hispagatos.space
- [https|gemini]://2600.Madrid - https://hispagatos.space/@rek2
- https://keyoxide.org/A31C7CE19D9C58084EA42BA26C0B0D11E9303EC5