Google has announced it will end support for Usenet
<www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/google_ends_usenet_links>

On 12/18/2023 8:40 PM, dbnnet wrote:
> Google has announced it will end support for Usenet
> <www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/google_ends_usenet_links>

More correctly, only Google Groups will disappear while Usenet will
continue to work? :)

On 12/18/2023 8:40 PM, dbnnet wrote:
> Google has announced it will end support for Usenet
> <www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/google_ends_usenet_links>

Related:

google groups to end - Google Search
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+groups+to+end

Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups (at
groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to Usenet
groups, or view new Usenet content.8 hours ago

on 18/12/2023, dbnnet supposed :
> Google has announced it will end support for Usenet
> <www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/google_ends_usenet_links>

I think I used GG a couple of times in 20-more years: I won't miss it

--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
............ [ al lavoro ] ...........

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

> On 12/18/2023 8:40 PM, dbnnet wrote:
> > Google has announced it will end support for Usenet
> > <www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/google_ends_usenet_links>
>
> More correctly, only Google Groups will disappear while Usenet will
> continue to work? :)

Well, Google Groups will still work for Google's own groups... it
just won't work as a portal to Usenet.

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>More correctly, only Google Groups will disappear while Usenet will
>continue to work? :)

Given the lack of support from Google and the amount of spam injected into
Usenet through Google, this is a good thing.

--
Usenet: The world's first (and best) social network.

dbnnet wrote:
> Google has announced it will end support for Usenet
> <www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/google_ends_usenet_links>

Don't know why they're holding off on this change. Given the amount of
spam coming from GG, I wish they'd just do it now and get it over with.

--
John C.

On 12/18/2023 10:51 AM, Ammammata wrote:
> on 18/12/2023, dbnnet supposed :
>> Google has announced it will end support for Usenet
>> <www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/google_ends_usenet_links>
>
> I think I used GG a couple of times in 20-more years: I won't miss it
>
Our condo has a private Listserv hosted on Google Groups. We'd sure
miss it if Google Groups went away. As stated by a previous comment in
this thread, Google Groups isn't going away. It just will not be a
portal to USENET groups in the future.

Am 19.12.23 um 01:35 schrieb Arthur Conan Doyle:
> "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> More correctly, only Google Groups will disappear while Usenet will
>> continue to work? :)
>
> Given the lack of support from Google and the amount of spam injected into
> Usenet through Google, this is a good thing.
>
> --
> Usenet: The world's first (and best) social network.

*BRAGGER* but you are not able to correctly add a signature.

Name
Doyle is often referred to as "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" or "Conan Doyle",
implying that "Conan" is part of a compound surname rather than a middle
name. His baptism entry in the register of St Mary's Cathedral,
Edinburgh, gives "Arthur Ignatius Conan" as his given names and "Doyle"
as his surname. It also names Michael Conan as his godfather.[1] The
catalogues of the British Library and the Library of Congress treat
"Doyle" alone as his surname.

Steven Doyle, publisher of The Baker Street Journal, wrote: "Conan was
Arthur's middle name. Shortly after he graduated from high school he
began using Conan as a sort of surname. But technically his last name is
simply 'Doyle'." When knighted, he was gazetted as Doyle, not under the
compound Conan Doyle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Conan_Doyle

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 19 Dec 2023 at 14:24:07 CET, ""John C."" <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:

> dbnnet wrote:
>> Google has announced it will end support for Usenet
>> <www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/google_ends_usenet_links>
>
> Don't know why they're holding off on this change. Given the amount of
> spam coming from GG, I wish they'd just do it now and get it over with.

Well from here
<https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?hl=en>

> Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
>
> Over the last several years, legitimate activity in text-based Usenet groups
> has declined significantly because users have moved to more modern
> technologies and formats such as social media and web-based forums. Much of
> the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file
> sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam.

So, in their opinion, the spam is coming from Usenet instead of the other way
around.

But in reality, after I deleted all message-id with google on them, all spam
suddenly disappeared.

--
-alien-
~ Work like you don't need the money. ~
~ Love like you've never been hurt. ~
~ Dance like nobody is looking. ~

On 12/19/2023 8:24 AM, John C. wrote:
> dbnnet wrote:
>> Google has announced it will end support for Usenet
>> <www.theregister.com/2023/12/18/google_ends_usenet_links>
>
> Don't know why they're holding off on this change. Given the amount of
> spam coming from GG, I wish they'd just do it now and get it over with.
>

It takes time to transition people from one service to another.

Paul

Paul wrote:
> John C. wrote:
>>
>> Don't know why they're holding off on this change. Given the amount of
>> spam coming from GG, I wish they'd just do it now and get it over with.
>
> It takes time to transition people from one service to another.
>
You mean google has an /actual/ person 'working on' GG? It seems like
one of those things that is 'setup' and then just runs on 'autopilot'
endlessly.

--
Mike Easter

Mike Easter wrote:

> Paul wrote:
> > John C. wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't know why they're holding off on this change. Given the
> > > amount of spam coming from GG, I wish they'd just do it now and
> > > get it over with.
> >
> > It takes time to transition people from one service to another.
> >
> You mean google has an actual person 'working on' GG? It seems
> like one of those things that is 'setup' and then just runs on
> 'autopilot' endlessly.

Yeah, I doubt there has been anyone directly overseeing the Google
Groups project for years, it seems like the system just ran away. If
there was an office within Mountain View dedicated to 'Google Groups'
I'd say they just spent their days watching movies on their Pixel
phones. Then when the Usenet spamflood became a problem and
complaints were coming in left, right and centre, rather than put
someone on the case to sort it all out, they just decided to close
the GG Usenet gateway down.

It's just a pity it has taken them this long!!!

Blueshirt wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>> John C. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don't know why they're holding off on this change. Given the
>>>> amount of spam coming from GG, I wish they'd just do it now and
>>>> get it over with.
>>>
>>> It takes time to transition people from one service to another.
>>>
>> You mean google has an actual person 'working on' GG? It seems
>> like one of those things that is 'setup' and then just runs on
>> 'autopilot' endlessly.
>
> Yeah, I doubt there has been anyone directly overseeing the Google
> Groups project for years, it seems like the system just ran away. If
> there was an office within Mountain View dedicated to 'Google Groups'
> I'd say they just spent their days watching movies on their Pixel
> phones. Then when the Usenet spamflood became a problem and
> complaints were coming in left, right and centre, rather than put
> someone on the case to sort it all out, they just decided to close
> the GG Usenet gateway down.
>
> It's just a pity it has taken them this long!!!

It was me who contacted Eternal-September and asked Wolfgang to consider
blocking everything coming from GG. He graciously agreed and did so.

I long ago created a GG account just to be able to look at things via
that feed. For a while, I would file a complaint to Google about every
spam being posted to alt.comp.freeware. This was just to see if Google
would get the point and, like they'd done with other groups that were
suffering huge spam attacks, stop carrying ACF. It didn't work though,
so I quit filing the complaints and that was when I got in touch with ES.

The spam appeared (or appears, if it's still being sent) to be coming
from hundred or thousands of hacked GMail accounts. How this could have
happened is anybody's guess. It could have been a corporate attack
against Google, somebody's AI algorithm gone mad, a psychopath or even
Google itself that was (or is) responsible for the flood.

Speaking of AI bots, I just asked you.com "Who or what is responsible
for the massive spam attack on Usenet which is being sent via Google
Groups?"

The reply was:

"The massive spam attack on Usenet, which is being sent via Google
Groups, has been a significant issue. The history of spam dates back to
the early days of the internet, with the first large-scale spam attack
occurring in 1994 on Usenet . The responsibility for the spam attack can
be attributed to various factors, including the use of special software
known as "harvesting bots" or "harvesters," which obtain email addresses
from public data on Usenet, among other sources . Additionally, spammers
may also use a form of dictionary attack to harvest email addresses.

The use of Usenet as a platform for sending spam has been a longstanding
issue. Usenet has been a victim of the first large-scale spam attack in
1994. Furthermore, the transition of Usenet discussions to Google Groups
has also contributed to the spam-related challenges. Google Groups, as a
Usenet host/client, has been a platform where spam attacks have been
observed.

In summary, the responsibility for the massive spam attack on Usenet,
which is being sent via Google Groups, can be attributed to the use of
harvesting bots, dictionary attacks, and the transition of Usenet
discussions to platforms like Google Groups, which have become a target
for spam attacks."

That answer is only partially complete, but seems to be a likely part of
the entire answer. So I then asked:

"But you don't know who or what is directly responsible?"

and was told:

"I understand your concern. The direct individuals or entities
responsible for the massive spam attack on Usenet via Google Groups may
not be definitively known. Spam attacks are often carried out by
individuals or groups seeking to promote products, services, or
malicious content. These actors may use *automated tools*, such as
harvesting bots, to gather email addresses and send out large volumes of
unsolicited messages.

Identifying the specific individuals or groups behind such spam attacks
can be challenging due to the anonymous and decentralized nature of the
internet. These actors may operate from various locations around the
world and take measures to conceal their identities.

Efforts to combat spam typically involve technological solutions, legal
measures, and community-based initiatives. Internet service providers,
email service providers, and organizations like Usenet and Google work
to implement spam filters, anti-abuse policies, and user reporting
mechanisms to mitigate the impact of spam."

--
John C.

John C. wrote:

> It was me who contacted Eternal-September and asked Wolfgang to consider
> blocking everything coming from GG. He graciously agreed and did so.

Actually he didn't, he selectively filters spam coming from GG rather
than blocking everything from them.

(to be pedantic, his servers were overwhelmed as a result of the
changes, so for *one* day he did block everything)

Andy Burns wrote:
> John C. wrote:
>>
>> It was me who contacted Eternal-September and asked Wolfgang to consider
>> blocking everything coming from GG. He graciously agreed and did so.
>
> Actually he didn't, he selectively filters spam coming from GG rather
> than blocking everything from them.
>
> (to be pedantic, his servers were overwhelmed as a result of the
> changes, so for *one* day he did block everything)

You're right, I only meant that he was blocking everything being sent to
ACF from Google Groups and still is. Yeah, I was experiencing a lot of
lag during the period of time that the servers were overloaded from the
spam. Hasn't happened for a while though. Not sure what's changed. Maybe
he added another server.

--
John C.

On 12/21/2023 6:41 AM, John C. wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>> John C. wrote:
>>>
>>> It was me who contacted Eternal-September and asked Wolfgang to consider
>>> blocking everything coming from GG. He graciously agreed and did so.
>>
>> Actually he didn't, he selectively filters spam coming from GG rather
>> than blocking everything from them.
>>
>> (to be pedantic, his servers were overwhelmed as a result of the
>> changes, so for *one* day he did block everything)
>
> You're right, I only meant that he was blocking everything being sent to
> ACF from Google Groups and still is. Yeah, I was experiencing a lot of
> lag during the period of time that the servers were overloaded from the
> spam. Hasn't happened for a while though. Not sure what's changed. Maybe
> he added another server.

He did. Like some of the other operators, he added a transit server
as well as the reader server.

The filter was moved to the transit server.

First he needed to spin up the filter, so he could do hand to hand combat.
Then, the secondary issue, was getting the server performance back.
And that's when the transit server came in.

By putting the filter off-node, the stream going to the reader server
is in mint condition and ready for use. No "message may have expired" stuff
now. Fixed.

Paul

John C. <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>. . .

>It was me who contacted Eternal-September and asked Wolfgang to consider
>blocking everything coming from GG. He graciously agreed and did so.

This is completely false statement. Everything is not blocked.

>. . .

Paul wrote:
> On 12/21/2023 6:41 AM, John C. wrote:
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>> John C. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It was me who contacted Eternal-September and asked Wolfgang to consider
>>>> blocking everything coming from GG. He graciously agreed and did so.
>>>
>>> Actually he didn't, he selectively filters spam coming from GG rather
>>> than blocking everything from them.
>>>
>>> (to be pedantic, his servers were overwhelmed as a result of the
>>> changes, so for *one* day he did block everything)
>>
>> You're right, I only meant that he was blocking everything being sent to
>> ACF from Google Groups and still is. Yeah, I was experiencing a lot of
>> lag during the period of time that the servers were overloaded from the
>> spam. Hasn't happened for a while though. Not sure what's changed. Maybe
>> he added another server.
>
> He did. Like some of the other operators, he added a transit server
> as well as the reader server.
>
> The filter was moved to the transit server.
>
> First he needed to spin up the filter, so he could do hand to hand combat.
> Then, the secondary issue, was getting the server performance back.
> And that's when the transit server came in.
>
> By putting the filter off-node, the stream going to the reader server
> is in mint condition and ready for use. No "message may have expired" stuff
> now. Fixed.

That's great! Thanks very much for the info, Paul.

--
John C.

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> John C. <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>> It was me who contacted Eternal-September and asked Wolfgang to consider
>> blocking everything coming from GG. He graciously agreed and did so.
>
> This is completely false statement. Everything is not blocked.

Rather than "false", "incorrect" would have sufficed. However, I only
meant that Wolfgang was filtering out all posts to *alt.comp.freeware*
and yes, it was me who initially contacted Wolfgang. But only about the
spam flood as far as it concerned alt.comp.freeware.

--
John C.