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

>>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.

It seems pretty clear now, even as it wasn't at all clear to me in the
beginning that what you guys knew is most likely the situation here.

1. Google is (knowingly?) allowing their users to create this spam
2. Google doesn't seem to care some newsgroups are now 95.5% spam
3. People can complain to the Google Groups Usenet portal if they like
<https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about>
4. But that's about it for what you can realistically do with Google
(don't even think about calling them at 650-253-0000 as I've tried)
5. The suggestion of "de-peering" needs to be directed to some servers
(most notably which seem to be highwinds, giganews & individual)

If someone can post the 'de-peering' contacts for those three servers,
then maybe we can send them a message letting them know of the problem.
--
"*Contact Owners and Managers of Google Usenet*"
Google Usenet (google-usenet@googlegroups.com)
<https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about>

In article <ul079r$2311s$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote
>
>>>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.
>
>It seems pretty clear now, even as it wasn't at all clear to me in the
>beginning that what you guys knew is most likely the situation here.
>
>1. Google is (knowingly?) allowing their users to create this spam
>2. Google doesn't seem to care some newsgroups are now 95.5% spam
>3. People can complain to the Google Groups Usenet portal if they like
> <https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about>
>4. But that's about it for what you can realistically do with Google
> (don't even think about calling them at 650-253-0000 as I've tried)
>5. The suggestion of "de-peering" needs to be directed to some servers
> (most notably which seem to be highwinds, giganews & individual)
>
>If someone can post the 'de-peering' contacts for those three servers,
>then maybe we can send them a message letting them know of the problem.

That would be one way.

giganews is one peer.

>--
> "*Contact Owners and Managers of Google Usenet*"
> Google Usenet (google-usenet@googlegroups.com)
> <https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about>

--
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

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> 5. The suggestion of "de-peering" needs to be directed to some servers
> (most notably which seem to be highwinds, giganews & individual)
>
> If someone can post the 'de-peering' contacts for those three servers,
> then maybe we can send them a message letting them know of the problem.

We follow the discussion here and are aware of the Google spam problem. We
also have some anti-spam measures for our reader servers. But it is really
easy to find our contact address (news@individual.net) on
https://news.individual.net/

In the past, issuing a UDP¹ has often not been particularly successful.

Heiko (for Newsmaster-Team of individual.net)

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_Death_Penalty

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

> Have you ever gotten any response from Google when contacting them for
> support? I certainly haven't.

Hi badgolferman,
I appreciate your adult request for my experience, since most people don't
have the capability nor desire to help everyone when contacting Google.

The problem hits people in many ways, most of whom don't realize this
because most posters to this child-like Apple newsgroup don't search before
they post a question - so they always start off from a point of ignorance.

Here are just some ways that the rampant 99.5% spam is causing for users:
A. The dejanews/dejagoogle search engine usefulness is almost nullified
B. Innocent news server admins have to deal with de-peering Google spam
C. All of us take a hit when our new server engines filter out 99.5% spam
etc.

Note that the child-like Apple iKooks have no comprehension of the global
problem set simply by them setting a filter to filter out google groups.

On this child-like Apple newsgroup, there's no hope to get a useful action
from iKooks like Alan Baker, Alan Browne, Jolly Roger, Joerg Lorenz, et al.

To answer your question, yes. I have been very successful with Google.
Three times, in fact.
All from either a phone or a web page.

1. Google changed the routing for a private road near where I live.
2. Google simplified the dejagoogle Usenet archive's URI for me
3. Google said they'd investigate Rod Speed's murder solicitation
(which he solicited on Usenet saying his GMail address is valid)

I explained those many times in the past, so above is merely summarized.

I appreciate that you ask if Google responds as there are two kinds of
people on this newsgroup - one of which is purposefully helpful people.

I put you and me in that category.
The iKooks are, by way of stark contrast, _never_ purposefully helpful.

They're the antithesis of me, which is why I despise their very existence.

They wouldn't stick out a finger to help anyone - and - in fact - they'd go
well out of their way to make life miserable for any innocent poster here.

In _that_ respect, I'm glad Lewis & Snit & Rod Speed & nospam are gone.

> As for Google Groups spam, I have found that Eternal-September does a
> decent job of filtering it out.

Eternal September has been one of the better news servers, it seems.

I authored what turned out to be a very informative discussion on the
peering newsgroup, which explain all about the peering issue you speak of.
*Who is peering all these spams ostensibly from Google Groups?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw>

Ray Bananna (Wolfgang Weygan), who is the Eternal-September admin,
responded in that thread (and in many others that I'm aware of).

The bad news servers, apparently, are these three, in order (AFAIK):
1. Highwinds
2. Giganews
3. Individual

But I could be wrong on that as I don't know nntp like Frank Slootweg does.

> However since I compile the monthly
> newsgroup stats I also have an account on a new server which doesn't filter
> out anything and that's the one I use for the stats.

The spam is really terrible - about 99.5% spam on the Android newsgroup.
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>

> A few weeks ago I had to provide the address of some legitimate Google
> Groups users from another newsgroup who were being blocked by
> Eternal-September. The administrator whitelisted them within a day. Try
> that with Google support...

These three news server admins are, in a word, complete assholes.
1. Highwinds
2. Giganews
3. Individual

However, the news server admins you're speaking about, are not.

In addition to Ray Banana (of eternal september), I too have been very
successful with working with the admins of many nntp servers, such as Paolo
Amaroso (who poisoned alt.home.repair due to the spams from Dean Hoffman,
for example) and from Steve Crook (of mixmin) and from Alex de Jood (of
dizum) and from Ivo Gandolfo (of paganini) and from Roman Racine (albasani)
and from Benjamin Gufler (at Solani) and from Jesse Rehmer (blueworld) and
from Steen Jensen (sunsite) and from Alexander Samoylyk (eponymous), etc.
(all those are offhand AFAIR).

But as you know, Google is different. I tried calling them just this week.
<https://i.postimg.cc/d388rqkj/google02.jpg> (Google at the 3-hour point)

In summary, you can ask for advice on what to do with these newsgroups:
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.software.nntp>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

Given on this newsgroup the purposefully unhelpful iKooks can't be relied
upon to do anything for anyone, the few remaining adults could do this:
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/xxniDVj3ArI/>
--
Getting something done for everyone requires a heart for useful purposes.

Heiko Schlichting <heiko@cis.fu-berlin.de> wrote

> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> 5. The suggestion of "de-peering" needs to be directed to some servers
>> (most notably which seem to be highwinds, giganews & individual)
>>
>> If someone can post the 'de-peering' contacts for those three servers,
>> then maybe we can send them a message letting them know of the problem.
>
> We follow the discussion here and are aware of the Google spam problem. We
> also have some anti-spam measures for our reader servers. But it is really
> easy to find our contact address (news@individual.net) on
> https://news.individual.net/
>
> In the past, issuing a UDP� has often not been particularly successful.
>
> Heiko (for Newsmaster-Team of individual.net)
>
> � https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_Death_Penalty

Oh wow! Brian Gregory was _correct_ about your service, Mr. Schlichting!
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/xxniDVj3ArI/m/WfJqjUVPAQAJ>

You _do_ care about this google-groups-99.5%-spam-on-usenet problem!
(Note that I'm surprised. Humbled. Gratified. And humiliated!)

I have never worked with you - but I have tried, in the past, to get
spammers off of the various servers (as explained in articles cited below).

I humbly apologize to you.
Sincerely.
Directly.
And apologetically.

Mea culpa.

Unfortunately, only moments before I saw your article above, I posted this
(which I now belatedly would wish I had learned how to _cancel_ years ago).
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw/m/wjFb9mb3AAAJ>

I will issue a humble but well-intended sincere retraction of my
deprecating comments about you (where I had accidentally lumped you into
the same category as the news server admins for Highwinds & Giganews).

The very fact you know about the issue & that you care about the issue
enough to respond to the people who most care about Usenet, is gratifying.

I openly and publicly apologize to you for deprecating you moments ago.
I am sorry.

[Troll group snecked.]

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

> The bad news servers, apparently, are these three, in order (AFAIK):
> 1. Highwinds
> 2. Giganews
> 3. Individual
>
> But I could be wrong on that as I don't know nntp like Frank Slootweg does.

I have no indication that News.Individual.Net is a direct peer (of
Google Groups), but also no indication of the contrary.

Anyway, the consensus in the relevant groups is that a direct peer is
not in any way "bad". If it was, the admins would have depeered them.

[...]

> These three news server admins are, in a word, complete assholes.
> 1. Highwinds
> 2. Giganews
> 3. Individual

You owe the admin(s) of News.Individual.Net an apology and quick smart
too!

You asked (in this thread) for the "'de-peering' contacts" (which is a
non-concept) - which was unneeded, because it is in plain sight and
standard -, but one the admins of News.Individual.Net responded anyway.
AFAICT, you didn't even bother to respond to him, let alone thank him.

So if there's any "asshole", ....

[...]

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

> I have no indication that News.Individual.Net is a direct peer (of
> Google Groups), but also no indication of the contrary.

I will now, belatedly, agree with Frank Slootweg that the admins of
News.Individual.Net have responded just recently that
a. They're aware of the issue
b. They care, and,
c. They're doing something about it.

I apologize for deprecating them, which was based on my lack of information
about them. Mea culpa.

> You owe the admin(s) of News.Individual.Net an apology and quick smart
> too!

Thank you Frank for suggesting that apology, which, you'll note, was quick
smart sooner than you even could think imaginable, as you know me well in
that I am always ready to admit my mistakes when I make them (and I do).

It was my mistake alone to lump the admins of Individual with the likes of
Highwinds (whom I've never gotten any response to in _many_ requests) and
Giganews.

I apologize directly and humbly and sincerely to the Individual.net admins.
(If I knew how to cancel via telnet, I would try it if it's possible.

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Heiko Schlichting <heiko@cis.fu-berlin.de> wrote

[Most addressed in my response of a little earlier, so only some loose
ends.]

> Oh wow! Brian Gregory was _correct_ about your service, Mr. Schlichting!
> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/xxniDVj3ArI/m/WfJqjUVPAQAJ>

Don't use Google Groups URLs, but use message-ids or use both.

Google Groups doesn't show the full article and given the message-id,
users can use other means.

And especially in this (and similar) thread, using *Google Groups*
references is quite silly, don't you agree!?

[...]

> Unfortunately, only moments before I saw your article above, I posted this
> (which I now belatedly would wish I had learned how to _cancel_ years ago).
> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw/m/wjFb9mb3AAAJ>
>
> I will issue a humble but well-intended sincere retraction of my
> deprecating comments about you (where I had accidentally lumped you into
> the same category as the news server admins for Highwinds & Giganews).

So your qualification and insulting of the Highwinds & Giganews admins
is OK?

[...]

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> > I have no indication that News.Individual.Net is a direct peer (of
> > Google Groups), but also no indication of the contrary.
>
> I will now, belatedly, agree with Frank Slootweg that the admins of
> News.Individual.Net have responded just recently that
> a. They're aware of the issue
> b. They care, and,
> c. They're doing something about it.
>
> I apologize for deprecating them, which was based on my lack of information
> about them. Mea culpa.
>
> > You owe the admin(s) of News.Individual.Net an apology and quick smart
> > too!
>
> Thank you Frank for suggesting that apology, which, you'll note, was quick
> smart sooner than you even could think imaginable, as you know me well in
> that I am always ready to admit my mistakes when I make them (and I do).

Good.

I saw your apology directly after my response. That happens.

> It was my mistake alone to lump the admins of Individual with the likes of
> Highwinds (whom I've never gotten any response to in _many_ requests) and
> Giganews.

A bad experience is no excuse for public insults, especially not when
the insulted party is not even present. Also you're not their customer.
At best, you're a customer of one of their customers. So any complaints
should go to their customer. Seeing you couldn't be bothered to use the
obvious way to contact the NIN admin(s), I doubt you used the right way
to contact Highwinds/Giganews.

> I apologize directly and humbly and sincerely to the Individual.net admins.
> (If I knew how to cancel via telnet, I would try it if it's possible.

Very few - if any - News servers honour cancel commands/control-messages
from users (or other servers for that matter). Way too easy to abuse.
For all intents and purposes, cancels do not work. (They only worked in
The Good Old Days (TM), when everybody was still behaving.)

On 12/10/23 14:06, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Very few - if any - News servers honour cancel commands/control-messages
> from users (or other servers for that matter). Way too easy to abuse.
> For all intents and purposes, cancels do not work. (They only worked in
> The Good Old Days (TM), when everybody was still behaving.)

I wonder if there's any room for, or value in, network providing a
gateway that takes locally originated cancels (preferably from an
authenticated user on the reader server they use) and convert them into
a NoCeM.

Grant. . . .

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:

[...]

> The iKooks are, by way of stark contrast, _never_ purposefully helpful.
>
> They're the antithesis of me, which is why I despise their very existence.
>
> They wouldn't stick out a finger to help anyone - and - in fact - they'd go
> well out of their way to make life miserable for any innocent poster here.

[...]

Wally J, you are either trolling or just very rude; which is it?

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator
<snipeco.1@gmail.com>
Google Groups articles seen only if poster whitelisted.
My pet rock Gordon just is.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> I have no indication that News.Individual.Net is a direct peer (of
> Google Groups), but also no indication of the contrary.

News.Individual.Net is handled on our reader servers. The peering with
Google takes place on our feeder server (newsfeed.fu-berlin.de) which is
operated by the same news admin team. So we are responsible for the
peering, but not for the Spam itself.

We do care about the Spam flood posted via Google Groups but as a German
state university we do not have any influence on Google. But - if
necessary - we would stop our long time peering with Google. Unfortunately,
as an isolated action, this doesn't make a positive difference. We will
continue to follow the discussion here closely.

Heiko (for Newsmaster-Team of individual.net)

On 12/11/23 02:40, Heiko Schlichting wrote:
> News.Individual.Net is handled on our reader servers. The peering with
> Google takes place on our feeder server (newsfeed.fu-berlin.de) which is
> operated by the same news admin team. So we are responsible for the
> peering, but not for the Spam itself.

ACK

> We do care about the Spam flood posted via Google Groups

DoubleACK

> but as a German state university we do not have any influence on Google.

Do you as a Google peer have any contacts inside of Google?

The last time I tried to interact with the newsmaster(s) at Google ended
poorly with a refusal to create some new groups being created at the
time (either Mozilla adjacent and / or Windows 10) with some other
disheartening outcome.

I would /hope/ -- but not hold my breath -- that you have a bit more
influence /as/ /a/ /peer/ than others around the world / Internet.

> But - if necessary - we would stop our long time peering with Google.

I appreciate that you are willing to de-peer Google if it comes to that.

> Unfortunately,
> as an isolated action, this doesn't make a positive difference. We will
> continue to follow the discussion here closely.

I would encourage you and your colleagues to start thinking about what
actions would warrant de-peering Google to you / your team, along with
any communications you might want to have with Google regarding -- what
I consider to be -- blatant spam spewing from them.

Again, I would hope, that as a peer, you might be able to contact
someone in Google and get them to try to stem the tide.

Thank you for your consideration, whatever that ends up being.

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

> Again, I would hope, that as a peer, you might be able to contact
> someone in Google and get them to try to stem the tide.

100% agree with both Grant and Heiko (and much appreciate their actions!).

As with Grant, I was only able to get Google to change their format for the
dejaGoogle URIs, but I was not able to get them to add the Windows
newsgroups or some of the common software newsgroups (tbird, ffox, etc.).

As with Grant, I would "hope" (to dear God I hope, in fact) that you and
the other peers to Google have "some method" of getting a hold of them.

Worst case, there's this URL (which is for the proletariat such as I am).
<https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about>

In article <kto07rFc2cvU1@mid.uni-berlin.de>,
Heiko Schlichting <heiko@cis.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> I have no indication that News.Individual.Net is a direct peer (of
>> Google Groups), but also no indication of the contrary.
>
>News.Individual.Net is handled on our reader servers. The peering with
>Google takes place on our feeder server (newsfeed.fu-berlin.de) which is
>operated by the same news admin team. So we are responsible for the
>peering, but not for the Spam itself.
>
>We do care about the Spam flood posted via Google Groups but as a German
>state university we do not have any influence on Google. But - if
>necessary - we would stop our long time peering with Google. Unfortunately,
>as an isolated action, this doesn't make a positive difference. We will
>continue to follow the discussion here closely.
>
>Heiko (for Newsmaster-Team of individual.net)

You will make a difference. In depeering GG from your peers,
you are telling Enough Google! Clean up your act
if you want to be a good netizen.
--
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 <ul78a8$66j$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/11/23 02:40, Heiko Schlichting wrote:
>> News.Individual.Net is handled on our reader servers. The peering with
>> Google takes place on our feeder server (newsfeed.fu-berlin.de) which is
>> operated by the same news admin team. So we are responsible for the
>> peering, but not for the Spam itself.
>
>ACK
>
>> We do care about the Spam flood posted via Google Groups
>
>DoubleACK
>
>> but as a German state university we do not have any influence on Google.
>
>Do you as a Google peer have any contacts inside of Google?
>
>The last time I tried to interact with the newsmaster(s) at Google ended
>poorly with a refusal to create some new groups being created at the
>time (either Mozilla adjacent and / or Windows 10) with some other
>disheartening outcome.
>
>I would /hope/ -- but not hold my breath -- that you have a bit more
>influence /as/ /a/ /peer/ than others around the world / Internet.
>
>> But - if necessary - we would stop our long time peering with Google.
>
>I appreciate that you are willing to de-peer Google if it comes to that.
>
>> Unfortunately,
>> as an isolated action, this doesn't make a positive difference. We will
>> continue to follow the discussion here closely.
>
>I would encourage you and your colleagues to start thinking about what
>actions would warrant de-peering Google to you / your team, along with
>any communications you might want to have with Google regarding -- what
>I consider to be -- blatant spam spewing from them.
>
>Again, I would hope, that as a peer, you might be able to contact
>someone in Google and get them to try to stem the tide.
>
>Thank you for your consideration, whatever that ends up being.
>
>

Motion 2nded!

>
>--
>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

In article <ul78r5$2s6eg$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote
>
>> Again, I would hope, that as a peer, you might be able to contact
>> someone in Google and get them to try to stem the tide.
>
>100% agree with both Grant and Heiko (and much appreciate their actions!).
>
>As with Grant, I was only able to get Google to change their format for the
>dejaGoogle URIs, but I was not able to get them to add the Windows
>newsgroups or some of the common software newsgroups (tbird, ffox, etc.).
>
>As with Grant, I would "hope" (to dear God I hope, in fact) that you and
>the other peers to Google have "some method" of getting a hold of them.
>
>Worst case, there's this URL (which is for the proletariat such as I am).
> <https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about>

About time GG does something about their abuse ,same with GMail.
I make on Twitter, Facebook and Linkedin daily updates on
Google abuse occurs when necessary.

--
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 2023-12-11, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@Use.Reply-To.Address.invalid> wrote:
> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The iKooks are, by way of stark contrast, _never_ purposefully helpful.
>>
>> They're the antithesis of me, which is why I despise their very existence.
>>
>> They wouldn't stick out a finger to help anyone - and - in fact - they'd go
>> well out of their way to make life miserable for any innocent poster here.
>
> [...]
>
> Wally J, you are either trolling or just very rude; which is it?

Both are true.=

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> On 12/11/23 02:40, Heiko Schlichting wrote:
>> but as a German state university we do not have any influence on Google.
>
> Do you as a Google peer have any contacts inside of Google?

We do have a contact address which is many years old and which we will not
publish (under no circumstances). We communicate via a generic admin
address but didn't have any conversation for many, many years. The peering
is established log time ago and stable since then.

> I would /hope/ -- but not hold my breath -- that you have a bit more
> influence /as/ /a/ /peer/ than others around the world / Internet.

One might think. Unfortunately that's not really the case. Sorry.

Heiko (for Newsmaster-Team of individual.net)

In article <ktotvtFj1sfU1@mid.uni-berlin.de>,
Heiko Schlichting <heiko@cis.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>> On 12/11/23 02:40, Heiko Schlichting wrote:
>>> but as a German state university we do not have any influence on Google.
>>
>> Do you as a Google peer have any contacts inside of Google?
>
>We do have a contact address which is many years old and which we will not
>publish (under no circumstances). We communicate via a generic admin
>address but didn't have any conversation for many, many years. The peering
>is established log time ago and stable since then.
>
>> I would /hope/ -- but not hold my breath -- that you have a bit more
>> influence /as/ /a/ /peer/ than others around the world / Internet.
>
>One might think. Unfortunately that's not really the case. Sorry.
>
>Heiko (for Newsmaster-Team of individual.net)

Do what is right and depeer Google Groups now!
--
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 12/11/23 11:08, Heiko Schlichting wrote:
> We do have a contact address which is many years old and which we will not
> publish (under no circumstances). We communicate via a generic admin
> address but didn't have any conversation for many, many years. The peering
> is established log time ago and stable since then.

It might be time to pull that old address out, blow the dust off of it,
and see if anyone answers.

> One might think. Unfortunately that's not really the case. Sorry.

Based on my personal experience I'm not going to be surprised if nobody
answers.

N.B. I don't consider an auto-reply referring you to public
documentation to be a legitimate answer.

--
Grant. . . .

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> Heiko Schlichting <heiko@cis.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>> I would /hope/ -- but not hold my breath -- that you have a bit more
>>> influence /as/ /a/ /peer/ than others around the world / Internet.
>>
>>One might think. Unfortunately that's not really the case. Sorry.
>
> Do what is right and depeer Google Groups now!

All peerings with Google will end on 2024-02-22:
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet

Google also informed their peers like us.

Until then, there are strong anti-spam measures on our reader servers for
our customers. We'll see if the spammers look for another news server or
not. Hopefully not.

Google's departure will change Usenet again, just as AOL did in
"September" 1993¹. For better or worse? We'll find out.

Heiko (for Newsmaster-Team of individual.net)

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

In article <ku2irmFodmsU1@mid.uni-berlin.de>,
Heiko Schlichting <heiko@cis.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Heiko Schlichting <heiko@cis.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>>> I would /hope/ -- but not hold my breath -- that you have a bit more
>>>> influence /as/ /a/ /peer/ than others around the world / Internet.
>>>
>>>One might think. Unfortunately that's not really the case. Sorry.
>>
>> Do what is right and depeer Google Groups now!
>
>All peerings with Google will end on 2024-02-22:
> https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
>
>Google also informed their peers like us.
>
>Until then, there are strong anti-spam measures on our reader servers for
>our customers. We'll see if the spammers look for another news server or
>not. Hopefully not.
>
>Google's departure will change Usenet again, just as AOL did in
>"September" 1993�. For better or worse? We'll find out.
>
>Heiko (for Newsmaster-Team of individual.net)
>
>� https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

Yay! Anyways I keep seeing 15 Feb 2024 !
--
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

Heiko Schlichting <heiko@cis.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Do what is right and depeer Google Groups now!
>
> All peerings with Google will end on 2024-02-22:
> https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet

Done.

Heiko (for Newsmaster-Team of individual.net)

In news.software.nntp Heiko Schlichting <heiko@cis.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

>> All peerings with Google will end on 2024-02-22:
>> https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
>
> Done.

Confirmed here (news.chmurka.net). What a relief.