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

> Duh! The *point* is that - on a properly configured server - the PATH
> header *is* "fully controlled by the server", so it's *not* "fungible".

As I said, I'll defer to your knowledge, Frank. Otherwise I have to dig up
the cites but all I want you to do is agree that we discussed this twice.

Now three times.

> So as usual a lot of talk, without specifics, let alone proof.

I'm deferring to you, Frank. I'm not disputing you. I'm only disputing your
comments that we didn't discuss this in the past (twice) - that's all.

> As I said, *some* rogue server(s) allowed preloading the path, so
> obviously on that/those server(s) one was "able to inject stuff into the
> path". But on a legit server, this was and is not possible.

Again (and again and again), I'm agreeing with you Frank.
I never dispute facts. Only fools do that (that's why they're fools).

The only thing I disputed was your statement that we never covered this.
We did. Twice. Now three times.

That's all.

>> If we must, I'll dig up the cite as it was on the comp.mobile.android ng.
>
> Don't "dig up the cite", because that will be only more talk and no
> proof, but post a cite which proves you "injected stuff into the path"
> of a *legit* server *and* give the Message-ID of that cite.

Frank, I'm one of the most logical and sensible people you'll ever have the
pleasure of speaking with anywhere - not just on Usenet - but anywhere.

I look at facts and I assess those facts.
Empirically I test some of the facts.

My assessments are based on the facts.
I rarely guess.

I wouldn't have multiple graduate degrees, Frank, if I always guessed.
You can't pass those science & engineering tests by mere guessing, Frank.

My conclusions are always sound as long as the facts they're based on are.
And I'm not disagreeing with any fact you've presented other than the fact
that we discussed this problem in the past - twice - and now three times.

In _my_ tests, long ago (and one this week) many parts of the header were
fungible (which is why I told the moronic iKooks that the headers were not
inviolate and which is what you originally disputed (rightly so since
_some_ headers are inviolate but it was an off-the-cuff response to a moron
who wouldn't know a PATH: header from an Injection-Info: header.

Suffice to say I agree with you fully that it's a waste of time to even try
to spoof teh PATH: or Injection-Info: for someone like me who has no great
skills other than I can spoof the easy-to-spoof headers on most servers.

What are the easy-to-spoof headers on most nntp servers?

In my experience what the user can specify is usually something like
The subject
The references list
The time zone
The user agent (or newsreader)
The mime version
The character encoding
The message id
The from
The content type
Most X headers
XFaces

That's all I can think of, offhand, but notice I didn't put the path in
that since it shouldn't be fungible for a reasonably well set up server.
--
Logically sensible people base their assessments on facts.

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> > Duh! The *point* is that - on a properly configured server - the PATH
> > header *is* "fully controlled by the server", so it's *not* "fungible".
>
> As I said, I'll defer to your knowledge, Frank. Otherwise I have to dig up
> the cites but all I want you to do is agree that we discussed this twice.
>
> Now three times.

You didn't say we discussed this - which indeed we did - but said we
*tested* this:

<WJ>
Absolutely you are correct. The only two headers that I'm aware of that are
"harder" to spoof are the path (which I tested once with Frank Slootweg to
see what we could inject into the path) and now I foound out the injection
header also.
</WJ>

I objected to *that*, hence I wrote:

<FS>
For the record, I never "tested" spoofing the PATH header with you,
because - being an ex News admin - I knew the PATH header can't be
'spoofed' (read: preloaded) - by a newsreader user - on a properly
configured News server.
</FS>

[...]

> Frank, I'm one of the most logical and sensible people you'll ever have the
> pleasure of speaking with anywhere - not just on Usenet - but anywhere.
>
> I look at facts and I assess those facts.
> Empirically I test some of the facts.
>
> My assessments are based on the facts.
> I rarely guess.

Well, you did this time [1]. Guessing what you wrote, instead of
knowing/checking what you actually wrote, despite my clue-by-four.

EOD.

[...]

[1] Not that it's the only time, far from it.

On 6 Dec 2023 09:41:51 GMT,
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> > Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
> >
> > > Duh! The *point* is that - on a properly configured server
> > > - the PATH header *is* "fully controlled by the server", so
> > > it's *not* "fungible".
> >
> > As I said, I'll defer to your knowledge, Frank. Otherwise I
> > have to dig up the cites but all I want you to do is agree
> > that we discussed this twice.
> >
> > Now three times.
>
> You didn't say we discussed this - which indeed we did - but
> said we *tested* this:
>
> <WJ>
> Absolutely you are correct. The only two headers that I'm aware
> of that are "harder" to spoof are the path (which I tested once
> with Frank Slootweg to see what we could inject into the path)
> and now I foound out the injection header also.
> </WJ>
>
> I objected to *that*, hence I wrote:
>
> <FS>
> For the record, I never "tested" spoofing the PATH header with
> you, because - being an ex News admin - I knew the PATH header
> can't be 'spoofed' (read: preloaded) - by a newsreader user -
> on a properly configured News server.
> </FS>

Piping up with some trepidation, but feel a need to point out it
may depend on how one interprets "which I tested once with Frank
Slootweg." Wally did say *he* tested it, and the "with" part is
perhaps ambiguous. For example, it could mean "taking into
account input from discussions with Frank." Of course, it could
also mean the testing was done with Frank, which seems to be not
the case.

Ted out.

--
Ted Heise <theise@panix.com> West Lafayette, IN, USA

Ted Heise <theise@panix.com> wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2023 09:41:51 GMT,
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> > > Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
> > >
> > > > Duh! The *point* is that - on a properly configured server
> > > > - the PATH header *is* "fully controlled by the server", so
> > > > it's *not* "fungible".
> > >
> > > As I said, I'll defer to your knowledge, Frank. Otherwise I
> > > have to dig up the cites but all I want you to do is agree
> > > that we discussed this twice.
> > >
> > > Now three times.
> >
> > You didn't say we discussed this - which indeed we did - but
> > said we *tested* this:
> >
> > <WJ>
> > Absolutely you are correct. The only two headers that I'm aware
> > of that are "harder" to spoof are the path (which I tested once
> > with Frank Slootweg to see what we could inject into the path)
> > and now I foound out the injection header also.
> > </WJ>
> >
> > I objected to *that*, hence I wrote:
> >
> > <FS>
> > For the record, I never "tested" spoofing the PATH header with
> > you, because - being an ex News admin - I knew the PATH header
> > can't be 'spoofed' (read: preloaded) - by a newsreader user -
> > on a properly configured News server.
> > </FS>
>
> Piping up with some trepidation, but feel a need to point out it
> may depend on how one interprets "which I tested once with Frank
> Slootweg." Wally did say *he* tested it, and the "with" part is
> perhaps ambiguous. For example, it could mean "taking into
> account input from discussions with Frank." Of course, it could
> also mean the testing was done with Frank, which seems to be not
> the case.

Yes, I know what he wrote was ambiguous (and I'm sure purposely so),
that's why I removed the ambiguity with my "For the record, I never
"tested" ..." response. But he didn't get that (or rather he chose not
to get it).

> Ted out.

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

> On 12/5/23 23:31, D wrote:
>> probably a dumb question, but could a rogue server make article path
>> headers appear to be downstream from "googlegroups" as the beginning
>> in a path, when in fact it might not be, but was somehow modified in
>> order to hide the actual source, e.g. this hypothetical path example:
>
> I think that a rogue server that peers with other servers would be
> allowed to present anything that the rogue server wanted to in the articles.
>
> Well, save for things that the receiving server would (should) reject;
> e.g. anything pretending to be the receiving server.
>
> That being said, I don't think that this is very likely as I suspect it
> would be a matter of (short amount of) time before this was detected and
> UDP applied to said rogue server.

I agree with everything said above, based on an assessment of the facts.
I'm ignorant. But logical. And sensible.

I don't speak nntp as well as those here, but I would also think that a
rogue server could present anything it wants to present, which is why I
originally had "assumed" this spam wasn't coming from Google's servers.

Of course, someone has to peer it, for us to end up seeing it, but notice
that Google's own DejaGoogle Usenet portal is showing that same spam.
<https://i.postimg.cc/fyCXPjpR/Google-Groups-Usenet-Portal-spam-20231206-730am.jpg>

That fact "implies" that Google is indeed the source of this spam
(since we could "logically assume" that Google users their own servers
for the DejaNews DejaGoogle portal from Google Groups to Usenet).

BTW, I entreaty everyone here to spend a minute to complain to Google:
<https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about>
This is what that interface initially looks like:
<https://i.postimg.cc/3JzWxG3f/please-do-this.jpg>

Then you get the option to send the owners of Google Usenet a complaint.
<https://i.postimg.cc/mgt9kRxV/googlebug3.jpg>

More detailed instructions here:
*Please complain to Google about their spamming of Usenet*
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/xxniDVj3ArI>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet/c/fr5MQcarCMM>
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/hO4JNke1bNc>
--
Together, maybe, just maybe, perhaps we can get someone at Google to care.

On 6/12/2023, Wally J wrote:
> Of course, someone has to peer it, for us to end up seeing it

The news.dizum.net admin is peering all of that Google spam.
Whoever that server admin is, he needs to get a knock at his door.

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

> Ted Heise <theise@panix.com> wrote:
>> On 6 Dec 2023 09:41:51 GMT,
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>> > Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>>> >
>>> > > Duh! The *point* is that - on a properly configured server
>>> > > - the PATH header *is* "fully controlled by the server", so
>>> > > it's *not* "fungible".
>>> >
>>> > As I said, I'll defer to your knowledge, Frank. Otherwise I
>>> > have to dig up the cites but all I want you to do is agree
>>> > that we discussed this twice.
>>> >
>>> > Now three times.
>>>
>>> You didn't say we discussed this - which indeed we did - but
>>> said we *tested* this:
>>>
>>> <WJ>
>>> Absolutely you are correct. The only two headers that I'm aware
>>> of that are "harder" to spoof are the path (which I tested once
>>> with Frank Slootweg to see what we could inject into the path)
>>> and now I foound out the injection header also.
>>> </WJ>
>>>
>>> I objected to *that*, hence I wrote:
>>>
>>> <FS>
>>> For the record, I never "tested" spoofing the PATH header with
>>> you, because - being an ex News admin - I knew the PATH header
>>> can't be 'spoofed' (read: preloaded) - by a newsreader user -
>>> on a properly configured News server.
>>> </FS>
>>
>> Piping up with some trepidation, but feel a need to point out it
>> may depend on how one interprets "which I tested once with Frank
>> Slootweg." Wally did say *he* tested it, and the "with" part is
>> perhaps ambiguous. For example, it could mean "taking into
>> account input from discussions with Frank." Of course, it could
>> also mean the testing was done with Frank, which seems to be not
>> the case.
>
> Yes, I know what he wrote was ambiguous (and I'm sure purposely so),
> that's why I removed the ambiguity with my "For the record, I never
> "tested" ..." response. But he didn't get that (or rather he chose not
> to get it).
>
>> Ted out.

Jesus Christ Frank, you can exasperate even me, and I'm the one who waited
five hours for Google to pick up the phone so it's not easy to fluster me.

Does _every_ post have to be vetted by your lawyer before you accept
that Usenet is a colloquial medium - and not peer-reviewed research?

Please send me the email of your lawyer so he can vet this next post.

A. First, I had responded to an iKook who claimed the newsreader
header was inviolable, and Frank vehemently and repeatedly
disputed that the headers could be munged at all.
B. Then I patiently explained (multiple times) to Frank that
speaking to an ignorant iKook is different than speaking with him.
C. Frank _still_ disputed the facts (as Frank is want to do)...
D. So I again patiently explained to Frank by showing him my tests.

Now we have to deal with this again?
And again?
And again?

Jesus Christ Frank.

Please send me your mom's email so that she can vet this post
to your liking as it still probably isn't explicit enough for you.

I had already written the below response up before I saw this crap.

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

> Well, you did this time [1]. Guessing what you wrote, instead of
> knowing/checking what you actually wrote, despite my clue-by-four.

OK. I admit you didn't test anything. You never do.
You simply disputed everything. You always do.

So is _this summary_ precise enough yet for you Frank?
a. I tested it.
b. We discussed those tests.
c. Three times now.

Is _that_ precise enough of a summary for you, Frank?
--
Let's write down this message-ID so that the next time you dispute every
word said because it's not precise enough for you, we'll have it handy.

In article <ukqdcg$3ev56$1@novabbs.org>, Patrick <patrick@oleary.com> wrote:
>On 6/12/2023, Wally J wrote:
>> Of course, someone has to peer it, for us to end up seeing it
>
>The news.dizum.net admin is peering all of that Google spam.
>Whoever that server admin is, he needs to get a knock at his door.

And Giganews as well!
--
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 12/6/23 12:09, Patrick wrote:
> The news.dizum.net admin is peering all of that Google spam.
> Whoever that server admin is, he needs to get a knock at his door.

Remember, the choice to carry a feed or not is up to each news server
administrator.

This applies to all server administrators.

If one server administrator wants to carry news from a spammy source,
that's their prerogative just like it's other news administrators
prerogative if they want to carry news from the previous news administrator.

I find it entertaining how quickly I've seen things progress along the
line from "YOU CAN'T FILTER" to "complain to the admin that isn't
filtering (Google)".

--
Grant. . . .

Disclaimer: My apologies to the rest of the audience. I'll try to keep
it short, but this personal abuse has to be dealt with.

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[...]

> Does _every_ post have to be vetted by your lawyer before you accept
> that Usenet is a colloquial medium - and not peer-reviewed research?

Yes, Usenet is a colloquial medium. That's why if someone posts
something which isn't quite correct, another poster can clarify/correct
and we all live happily ever after.

*Except* when the first poster is 'Arlen Holder' (or any other of his
eighty or so nyms) who can't handle being corrected, gets his knickers
in a twist and gets into an endless beating around the bush routine.

> Please send me the email of your lawyer so he can vet this next post.
>
> A. First, I had responded to an iKook who claimed the newsreader
> header was inviolable, and Frank vehemently and repeatedly
> disputed that the headers could be munged at all.

And there you fsck up *again*! (Of course) I did no such thing. So you
might as well quit while you're behind.

Do us all a favour: Don't ruin this newsgroup with your nonsensical
rants, like you've done - and are still doing - with so many other
groups.

[Rest of rant deleted.]

Grant wrote:
> Patrick wrote:
>> The news.dizum.net admin is peering all of that Google spam.
>> Whoever that server admin is, he needs to get a knock at his door.
>
> Remember, the choice to carry a feed or not is up to each news server
> administrator.
>
> This applies to all server administrators.
>
> If one server administrator wants to carry news from a spammy source,
> that's their prerogative just like it's other news administrators
> prerogative if they want to carry news from the previous news administrator.
>
> I find it entertaining how quickly I've seen things progress along the
> line from "YOU CAN'T FILTER" to "complain to the admin that isn't
> filtering (Google)".

Yes! ROTFL.

dizum has an anonymity agenda. Although YMMV, an excerpt of pertinent
dizum headers tells /me/ everything there is to know about dizum:

Path: sewer!news.dizum.net!not-for-mail
Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider
Injection-Info: sewer.dizum.com

Besides dizum, many other news hosts also peer with google-groups.

###

On another note, a change in my own news host's pseudo peers now
provides a proper Path: to implement Stéphane's suggestion:

$BADPATHS=google-groups.googlegroups.com
ME/$BADPATHS:::

Danke,

--
Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

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

> who can't handle being corrected

Frank

I'm going to write this to you as if you own adult comprehensive skills.

ACTION FOR FRANK:
1. First, read your own posts in this thread.
2. Then, read mine.

HINT #1:
a. I was corrected numerous times, Frank, e.g., by Grant Taylor.
b. And I took that correction like an adult should, Frank, now didn't I?

HINT #2:
A. You repeatedly ascribed ill intent on my part in your posts, Frank.
B. And then you bring up unrelated privacy issues you don't understand.

REQUEST FOR FRANK:
Act like an adult would, for once, Frank.

ADULT LOGIC:
Yes, Usenet is colloquial.
But don't use that as your paramount excuse to accuse others of ill intent.

In summary, if you can't comprehend what I'm proving to you, then I gave
you far too much credit already for being intelligent enough to do so.

Let's stop this childish idiocy of yours you always foment, Frank.
Please.
--
Usenet is water under the bridge, Frank.
Act civilly to me and I'll respond in kind.

On 12/6/23 14:38, Wally J wrote:
> a. I was corrected numerous times, Frank, e.g., by Grant Taylor.

Hey now, don't bring me into this. I have a reputation to hold down.

--
Grant. . . .

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> > who can't handle being corrected
>
> Frank
>
> I'm going to write this to you as if you own adult comprehensive skills.
>
> ACTION FOR FRANK: [deleted to end]
>

I have observed, Wally, that IMO you are very repetitive. You have told
us that you are senior in both years and achievements and your opinions
should be given fair hearing. I can respect that and I think you have
been accorded that privilege by your peers. However, your readers have
only your word for your status.

Your demeanour might equally well be trolling. You exhibit similar
traits to a notorious troll. I hope that is not the case.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator.
My pet rock Gordon just said "Don't Be Evil!"

Google Groups articles are not seen here unless poster is whitelisted.

Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote

> I can respect that

Your OT trolling (& personal attacks) attempting to derail this thread are
duly noted; but what you should be respecting is the topic of this thread.

Who do you think is peering all these spams coming out of Google?
We've noted giganews, individual and highwinds so far, but there are more.

Who else have you found to be peering spam emanating from Google groups?

And what do you think the best solution might be to protect the fragile
deja google search engine (which is very useful for millions of lookups)?

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> a. I was corrected numerous times, Frank, e.g., by Grant Taylor.
>
> Hey now, don't bring me into this. I have a reputation to hold down.

The point was Frank accused me of something that simply isn't the case.

I know you're joking above but the moment Frank Slootweg starts trolling a
thread with his personal attacks claiming that colloquial speech is ill
intended, the thread gets derailed to whatever Frank wants it to become.

This thread is about peering.
Not about Frank.

Despite that, Frank wants this thread to be all about him - and he's told
us that numerous times - but what I'll do in this thread moving forward to
prevent Frank's attacks is ignore Frank's purposefully off topic trolling.

Frank - *I will only respond to you if you can stay on topic please.*

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > I can respect that
> >
>
> Your OT trolling (& personal attacks) attempting to derail this thread are
> duly noted; but what you should be respecting is the topic of this thread.
>
> Who do you think is peering all these spams coming out of Google?
> We've noted giganews, individual and highwinds so far, but there are more.
>
> Who else have you found to be peering spam emanating from Google groups?
>
> And what do you think the best solution might be to protect the fragile
> deja google search engine (which is very useful for millions of lookups)?
>

IMO the DejaNews archive is so debased that it's next to useless.

I take a simple approach to Googlespam - I mark all GG posts as
read unless I have the poster whitelisted. Life is too short to
play whack-a-mole.

I'm sorry if you perceive my respectful comments (which you have
declined to quote) as abusive. I assure you that I am not trolling.
I had a comment to make, I made it, and now I am perfectly content
to disengage. Feel free to have the last word, Wally.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator.
My pet rock Gordon just said "Don't Be Evil!"

Google Groups articles are not seen here unless poster is whitelisted.

In article <1qld835.q80bavucvhs1N%snipeco.2@gmail.com>,
Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > I can respect that
>> >
>>
>> Your OT trolling (& personal attacks) attempting to derail this thread are
>> duly noted; but what you should be respecting is the topic of this thread.
>>
>> Who do you think is peering all these spams coming out of Google?
>> We've noted giganews, individual and highwinds so far, but there are more.
>>
>> Who else have you found to be peering spam emanating from Google groups?
>>
>> And what do you think the best solution might be to protect the fragile
>> deja google search engine (which is very useful for millions of lookups)?
>>
>
>IMO the DejaNews archive is so debased that it's next to useless.
>

Thank you Google for that!

>I take a simple approach to Googlespam - I mark all GG posts as
>read unless I have the poster whitelisted. Life is too short to
>play whack-a-mole.
>
>I'm sorry if you perceive my respectful comments (which you have
>declined to quote) as abusive. I assure you that I am not trolling.
>I had a comment to make, I made it, and now I am perfectly content
>to disengage. Feel free to have the last word, Wally.
>

I wonder if a class action lawsuit against Google would get their attentino.

>--
>^�^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator.
> My pet rock Gordon just said "Don't Be Evil!"
>
> Google Groups articles are not seen here unless poster is whitelisted.

--
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 12/7/23 06:20, The Doctor wrote:
> I wonder if a class action lawsuit against Google would get their attentino.

I'm quite certain that it would get the lawyercats attention.

I don't know what the result of that attention would be. I think it's a
three way split between more of what they are doing now (marking some
groups read-only), actually fixing the spam (to a very large degree), or
termination of the Google Groups Usenet gateway.

--
Grant. . . .

In article <uksomj$ugp$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/7/23 06:20, The Doctor wrote:
>> I wonder if a class action lawsuit against Google would get their attentino.
>
>I'm quite certain that it would get the lawyercats attention.
>
>I don't know what the result of that attention would be. I think it's a
>three way split between more of what they are doing now (marking some
>groups read-only), actually fixing the spam (to a very large degree), or
>termination of the Google Groups Usenet gateway.
>

So a win for the complainant.

>
>
>--
>Grant. . . .
>

--
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

Don wrote:
> Grant wrote:
>> Patrick wrote:
>>> The news.dizum.net admin is peering all of that Google spam.
>>> Whoever that server admin is, he needs to get a knock at his door.
>>
>> Remember, the choice to carry a feed or not is up to each news server
>> administrator.
>>
>> This applies to all server administrators.
>>
>> If one server administrator wants to carry news from a spammy source,
>> that's their prerogative just like it's other news administrators
>> prerogative if they want to carry news from the previous news administrator.
>>
>> I find it entertaining how quickly I've seen things progress along the
>> line from "YOU CAN'T FILTER" to "complain to the admin that isn't
>> filtering (Google)".
>
> Yes! ROTFL.
>
> dizum has an anonymity agenda. Although YMMV, an excerpt of pertinent
> dizum headers tells /me/ everything there is to know about dizum:
>
> Path: sewer!news.dizum.net!not-for-mail
> Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider
> Injection-Info: sewer.dizum.com
>
> Besides dizum, many other news hosts also peer with google-groups.
>
> ###
>
> On another note, a change in my own news host's pseudo peers now
> provides a proper Path: to implement Stéphane's suggestion:
>
> $BADPATHS=google-groups.googlegroups.com
> ME/$BADPATHS:::

There's one more thing - dizum is a remailer. And, although it offers a
mail2news gateway, it is not a news host.

Danke,

--
Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

D wrote:
> Don wrote:
>>Don wrote:

<snip>

>>> dizum has an anonymity agenda. Although YMMV, an excerpt of pertinent
>>> dizum headers tells /me/ everything there is to know about dizum:
>>> Path: sewer!news.dizum.net!not-for-mail
>>> Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider
>>> Injection-Info: sewer.dizum.com
>>> Besides dizum, many other news hosts also peer with google-groups.

<snip>

>>>There's one more thing - dizum is a remailer. And, although it offers a
>>mail2news gateway, it is not a news host.
>
> news.dizum.net

Bless you for setting me straight! It makes me very happy to discover the
dizum newshost. It will be immediately put to good use.

news.admin.peering re-added to header in case anyone encounters my bad
info in the group at a later date.

Danke,

--
Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 00:41:13 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>Don wrote:
>> Grant wrote:
>>> Patrick wrote:
>>>> The news.dizum.net admin is peering all of that Google spam.
>>>> Whoever that server admin is, he needs to get a knock at his door.
>>> Remember, the choice to carry a feed or not is up to each news server
>>> administrator.
>>> This applies to all server administrators.
>>> If one server administrator wants to carry news from a spammy source,
>>> that's their prerogative just like it's other news administrators
>>> prerogative if they want to carry news from the previous news administrator.
>>> I find it entertaining how quickly I've seen things progress along the
>>> line from "YOU CAN'T FILTER" to "complain to the admin that isn't
>>> filtering (Google)".
>> Yes! ROTFL.
>> dizum has an anonymity agenda. Although YMMV, an excerpt of pertinent
>> dizum headers tells /me/ everything there is to know about dizum:
>> Path: sewer!news.dizum.net!not-for-mail
>> Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider
>> Injection-Info: sewer.dizum.com
>> Besides dizum, many other news hosts also peer with google-groups.
>> ###
>> On another note, a change in my own news host's pseudo peers now
>> provides a proper Path: to implement Stephane's suggestion:
>> $BADPATHS=google-groups.googlegroups.com
>> ME/$BADPATHS:::
>There's one more thing - dizum is a remailer. And, although it offers a
>mail2news gateway, it is not a news host.
>Danke,

news.dizum.net

Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote

> Bless you for setting me straight! It makes me very happy to discover the
> dizum newshost. It will be immediately put to good use.
>
> news.admin.peering re-added to header in case anyone encounters my bad
> info in the group at a later date.

I happen to use a different news host for each newsgroup (for privacy
reasons, that's why) where I just checked & dizum today is 95.5% Google
spam (1687 new articles, 9 of which made it past my google spam filter).

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote

> I just checked & dizum today is 95.5% Google
> spam (1687 new articles, 9 of which made it past my google spam filter).

BTW, here's a re-post of what was just posted to the Android newsgroup.
It discusses that articles are pulled and then the filters are run.
In the case of the Android newsgroup today, 95.5% of it is now spam.

======< this is a re-post of that article just now on c.m.a >======

>>>>>> On 2023-12-06 21:22, micky wrote:
>>>>>>> Wow, just now 25 real posts and 2600 spam. Thank goodness for filters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where? I only saw one or two, in this group at least.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you understand how it works?
>>>>> It depends whether your service provider is filtering or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> My goodness, Carlos!
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think I didn't know?
>>>>
>>>> You are a fun spoiler.
>>>
>>> On News.Individual.Net there are big holes in the article number
>>> ranges, i.e. where the spam articles were before they got (locally)
>>> canceled.
>>>
>>> For safety reasons, I pull only 50 articles at a time, but because of
>>> the holes, each pull actually pulls only a few or no articles.
>>>
>>> Because today my own posts from yesterday appeared, I found out that
>>> my pulls have a backlog of some 2000 (mostly non-existing) articles.
>>>
>>> So if I'm slow in responding, you know why! :-) Just blame Google
>>> (Groups).
>>
>> Two or three times, start of day, machine booted or coming from
>> suspend/hibernation, Thunderbird asks for permission to download 3000
>> headers. But then just a few actually show up.
>>
>> Maybe TB is just looking at the index number, and as you say, there are
>> holes.

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

> Trying to load 3000 articles is probably enough. Over the past few
> days, I've seen article number deltas of some 2000 per day.

I thank Carlos & Frank for their civil discussion of what's going on.
We can all learn from Frank's assessment of the nntp server facts.

> A newsreader can only ask for headers by article numbers, because
> while it does know past article numbers (and so can ask for the next
> ones), it does not know the message-ids of the next ones (because the
> message-ids are in the headers which it still has to fetch).
>
> So the newsreader only gets the headers for the articles which
> actually exist, not for the (spam) articles which have been (locally)
> canceled by the news server.
>
> So your 3000 headers at a time works for you.

I have my scripts set to download all available headers, which is likely
why I've been noticing slowdowns when only 10 headers show up but it seems
like it's taking the time to download thousands of headers instead.

Thanks for assessing the facts which I have been seeing on my end.

> I OTOH have to do it bit by bit, because my local news server
> (Hamster) does the fetching of headers and articles and I do not want to
> risk loading *other* (than this GG) 'spam', because I keep my groups
> 'forever' (currently upto some 20 years) and Hamster has no way of
> deleting (local cancel) already received articles, so this spam would
> forever pollute my local news server (and hence its disk space, backup,
> etc.).

I use a variety of news servers where I looked into my log file and it
seems the incoming server I used for Android just got almost 1,700 headers.

Only 9 of which showed up after my kill-all-google-spam filters kicked in.
That's about 1/2 of 1% of the messages are real messages. 99.5% are spam.