Moving to new form of usenet ideas?

[Jon Slaughter]

Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially(o k, not really but it feels like it).

I think maybe its time to do something about it. What I'd like to see happen
is an "upgrade" to usenet. I do not like th forum based communiations that
has sprung up lately but since it solves many of usenet's shortcommings I
believe that will will take over.

If many people feel the same way then maybe we can move on to something
better and increase the efficiency and productivity that usenet was meant
for.

Some ideas I have are:

1. Cook repellent - Some method to prevent cooks from interrupting normal
flow. Either having a voting scheme or some type of identifying means to
either completely remove them or at least make it easier to avoid them.

2. Spam repellent - Similar to Cooks.

3. Meta data - Have the ability to directly include graphics and things like
TeX into messages. For those that do not want to view it they can disable it
or have some other means to see it.

4. Specific tools for groups - Different groups have different needs for
communication. Mathematics groups need to efficiently communicate
mathematical formulas while electronics need to communicate schematics.

5. Moderation - Potentially give regular users of the group the ability to
"quasi-moderate" or in general just have a wide range of options to have
more control over groups(But not to much).

6. Non-anomality or some way to slow down spammers. Maybe better routing
data and such.

7. Potentially "Backwards compatible" with usenet - have the ability to surf
usenet with the same client to help make a smoother transition.
----

In any case this is extremely preliminary and just some thoughts. It seems
that usenet has started to go down the drain. Hopefully there are those out
there that are interested in keeping it alive. I'm thinking something very
similar to usenet but with just more "features".

If enough people are interested in doing this then maybe we can put
something together. All ideas and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks,
Jon

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:34:24 GMT, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@ Hotmail.comwrot e:

>
"John Larkin" <jj******@highN OTlandTHIStechn ologyPART.comwr ote in message
news:b0******* *************** **********@4ax. com...

>On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:13:39 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo*********** @Hotmail.comwro te:

Maybe I don't use my filters properly but in any case its ridiculous. About
1 out of every 8 OT's in sci.electronics .basics is spam. I get tired of
blocking these.

Sci.Math has been flooded with the same spam but also about 1 out of every
100 posts(which is significant because Sci.Math is pretty active) is someone
asking for a solutions manual.

It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.

It's the same problem as with email, which is largely solved, for
those who care, by filters in servers and client software. This
could be done completely independently of any protocol or user
behavior in usenet. It would, however, require an investment by
_somebody_, likely the ISPs, but since usenet is so lightly used
compared to email I wouldn't hold my breath.

Again, if you want people to take you seriously or get behind you,
have a proposal that makes sense that provides a genuine means to get
you (and a lot of others) something of benefit. Just showing up,
spamming a bunch of disinterested newsgroups with an OT message, and
complaining without any apparent clue of how to solve the stated
problem is just going to, well, just has, annoy people.

>Moderated groups tend to be dull or totally dead. The cure is worse
than the disease.

Yes, I have noticed. That is why some type of self moderating idea would
work better. That is, by keeping track of the regular users(the hard part
then is spoofing problems) then it would allow them to vote on some of the
problems that moderation is suppose to solve.

That's a death-knell for usenet. The beauty of usenet is that most
groups are unmoderated and belong to no-one. If you want a moderated
forum there are web-apps for that or discussion groups that already
exist. Why take away the big benefit of usenet to make it just like
everything else that has popped up?

Who picks your "self-moderators"? How much authority do they have?
How do you police the moderators? It sounds like a way to create
another Wikipedia-like disaster.

>Maybe not the best method but just an idea. I'm sure there are better ones.
Point was to bring up the issues to get a discussion about it and get the
ideas flowing to improve on something. A lot of people seem to have taken
offense to this.

You've gotten the discussion going. You should listen to the
responses rather than discounting them.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lester Zick wrote:

>
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@e arthlink.netwro te:

Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.

Never happened to me or anyone else of course.

Sigh. So many idiots, so little time. The sig file is used to
remind an online stalker that he hasn't managed to interfere with my
volunteer work to help other disabled veterans. Take it any way you
want to.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[Michael A. Terrell]

Default User wrote:

>
Yeah, and LOT of those guys are dead now. Coincidence? I think not.

Yeah, old age kills a LOT of people. Around here, its over 200
Veterans, every 90 days.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[Michael A. Terrell]

Rick Decker wrote:

>
Heh. I did a lot of things in the Army that I (happily) haven't
done since.

Spam is better than the C rations, K rations or MREs I've tried.

As far as what i did in the service? I was a broadcast engineer for
AFRTS.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lester Zick wrote:

>

I always thought freedom of speech was self moderating. I guess not.

Maybe the group you are posting from will be hit with over 50,000 bot
posts in one day, the next time around. it really plugged up SED for a
while. it took me about a half hour to downlad the headers and delete
them, to find the 50 or so real posts that morning, but I'm on
broadbnd. the dialup guys weren't so lucky.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[John Fields]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:16:00 -0700, Lester Zick
<do********@now here.netwrote:

>On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:32:57 -0400, Rick Decker <rd*****@hamilt on.edu>
wrote:

>>Jon Slaughter wrote:

>>Sorry for all the cross posting but I'm interesting in getting a serious
discussion about how usenet has become lately.

Many people are moving away from usenet because of all the spam and cooks
that have been showing up. The rate of spammer seem to be growing
exponentially (ok, not really but it feels like it).

I think maybe its time to do something about it. What I'd like to see happen
is an "upgrade" to usenet. I do not like th forum based communiations that
has sprung up lately but since it solves many of usenet's shortcommings I
believe that will will take over.

If many people feel the same way then maybe we can move on to something
better and increase the efficiency and productivity that usenet was meant
for.

Some ideas I have are:

1. Cook repellent - Some method to prevent cooks from interrupting normal
flow. Either having a voting scheme or some type of identifying means to
either completely remove them or at least make it easier to avoid them.

I'd be in favor of that, to a degree. If you get a bad cook, simply
sending the meal back won't solve the problem.

I can't remember ever getting a bad idea from a cook. Whereas I've
gotten plenty from sacred cows.

>>2. Spam repellent - Similar to Cooks.

The worst would be cooks who prepare Spam. Though Spam is very
popular in some places (I understand that Hawaiians consume more
Spam than any other state in the US), I've never known a cook
who can prepare it well.

I believe Spam was invented by Capt. James Cook.

---
Nope.

http://www.spam.com/
---

>Possibly apochryphal.
I don't know who invented sacred cows.

---
The Indian Indians.
---

>Possibly bad cooks.

---
Hardly. Try a nice lamb vindaloo sometime...
--
JF

[me]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mi**********@e arthlink.netwro te in
news:47******** *******@earthli nk.net:

>Default User wrote:

>>
Yeah, and LOT of those guys are dead now. Coincidence? I think not.

Yeah, old age kills a LOT of people.

I think it gets everyone ...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[John Fields]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:24:11 -0500, me <[e-mail] te:

>"Michael A. Terrell" <mi**********@e arthlink.netwro te in
news:47******* ********@earthl ink.net:

>>Default User wrote:

>>>
Yeah, and LOT of those guys are dead now. Coincidence? I think not.

Yeah, old age kills a LOT of people.

I think it gets everyone ...

---
Well, maybe not, but the ones it doesn't get have to keep moving...
--
JF

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:05:32 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mi**********@e arthlink.netwro te:

>Lester Zick wrote:

>>

I always thought freedom of speech was self moderating. I guess not.

Maybe the group you are posting from will be hit with over 50,000 bot
posts in one day, the next time around. it really plugged up SED for a
while. it took me about a half hour to downlad the headers and delete
them, to find the 50 or so real posts that morning, but I'm on
broadbnd. the dialup guys weren't so lucky.

I never saw them. Supernews must have zapped them first.

John

[Don Lancaster]

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:34:24 GMT, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo***********@ Hotmail.comwrot e:

>>"John Larkin" <jj******@highN OTlandTHIStechn ologyPART.comwr ote in message
news:b0****** *************** ***********@4ax .com...

>>>On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:13:39 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
<Jo********* **@Hotmail.comw rote:

Maybe I don't use my filters properly but in any case its ridiculous. About
1 out of every 8 OT's in sci.electronics .basics is spam. I get tired of
blocking these.

Sci.Math has been flooded with the same spam but also about 1 out of every
100 posts(which is significant because Sci.Math is pretty active) is someone
asking for a solutions manual.

It will only get worse and I just think that nipping the problems in the bud
is the best solution instead of waiting until their full blown.

It's the same problem as with email, which is largely solved, for
those who care, by filters in servers and client software. This
could be done completely independently of any protocol or user
behavior in usenet. It would, however, require an investment by
_somebody_, likely the ISPs, but since usenet is so lightly used
compared to email I wouldn't hold my breath.

Again, if you want people to take you seriously or get behind you,
have a proposal that makes sense that provides a genuine means to get
you (and a lot of others) something of benefit. Just showing up,
spamming a bunch of disinterested newsgroups with an OT message, and
complaining without any apparent clue of how to solve the stated
problem is just going to, well, just has, annoy people.

>>>Moderated groups tend to be dull or totally dead. The cure is worse
than the disease.

Yes, I have noticed. That is why some type of self moderating idea would
work better. That is, by keeping track of the regular users(the hard part
then is spoofing problems) then it would allow them to vote on some of the
problems that moderation is suppose to solve.

That's a death-knell for usenet. The beauty of usenet is that most
groups are unmoderated and belong to no-one. If you want a moderated
forum there are web-apps for that or discussion groups that already
exist. Why take away the big benefit of usenet to make it just like
everything else that has popped up?

Who picks your "self-moderators"? How much authority do they have?
How do you police the moderators? It sounds like a way to create
another Wikipedia-like disaster.

>>Maybe not the best method but just an idea. I'm sure there are better ones.
Point was to bring up the issues to get a discussion about it and get the
ideas flowing to improve on something. A lot of people seem to have taken
offense to this.

You've gotten the discussion going. You should listen to the
responses rather than discounting them.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

The solution is PIOEP (Poison ivy over Ethernet Protocol).
Absolutely guaranteed to instantly eliminate any and all undesirable
emails, spam, and newsgroup posts.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/psnt.pdf , example 5

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: [phone]
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: do*@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com