Re: The Google theory -- it's Google spamming us

[Krice]

On 23 huhti, 09:34, "Alf P. Steinbach" <[e-mail] wrote:

If this new theory isn't true

Why doesn't usenet have a spam protection anyway?

[Lars Uffmann]

Krice wrote:

Why doesn't usenet have a spam protection anyway?

Because there's so many users - thanks to google groups (notice a
pattern here?), among others - that wouldn't know how to post in a way
that it is not considered spam by a spam assassin type software *g*

Best Regards,

Lars

[Default User]

Krice wrote:

On 23 huhti, 09:34, "Alf P. Steinbach" <[e-mail] wrote:

If this new theory isn't true

Why doesn't usenet have a spam protection anyway?

What do you mean by "usenet"? There's no "there" there. It's not any
kind of central repository, which is one of its great strengths. It's a
distributed system of thousands of individual servers. Each server can
(and some do) institute filtering policies.

The problem is that the spam comes from the 900 billion dollar gorilla.
If it was any other news service, the Usenet Death Penalty would be in
effect already.

Brian

[Pavel Lepin]

Default User <de***********@ yahoo.comwrote in
<67************ *@mid.individua l.net>:

Krice wrote:

>On 23 huhti, 09:34, "Alf P. Steinbach" <[e-mail] >
wrote:

If this new theory isn't true

Why doesn't usenet have a spam protection anyway?

What do you mean by "usenet"? There's no "there" there.
It's not any kind of central repository, which is one of
its great strengths. It's a distributed system of
thousands of individual servers. Each server can (and some
do) institute filtering policies.

The problem is that the spam comes from the 900 billion
dollar gorilla. If it was any other news service, the
Usenet Death Penalty would be in effect already.

I really don't see why the 900 billion dollarness should
even come into this.

GG generates a lot of traffic, but the SNR is abysmal. Spam,
zillions of unrecoverably clueless, a few
clueless-but-wanna-learn, and several experts invoking
Firewall Defense or somesuch to justify not being able to
use a decent nntp server. That's all there is to it. Yet
still, some stick-in-the-muds over on
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet whine about GG traffic being
crucial in supporting the supposedly agonising Usenet.

I dunno, I never noticed any agonising going on around here.
And the loss of noise can't be anything but good. Srsly,
off with their feeds!

--
I'm not dead, just pinin' for the fnords.

[Default User]

Pavel Lepin wrote:

>
Default User <de***********@ yahoo.comwrote in
<67************ *@mid.individua l.net>:

The problem is that the spam comes from the 900 billion
dollar gorilla. If it was any other news service, the
Usenet Death Penalty would be in effect already.

I really don't see why the 900 billion dollarness should
even come into this.

Because 900 billion dollar gorillas have large legal staffs.


Brian

[Pavel Lepin]

Default User <de***********@ yahoo.comwrote in
<67************ *@mid.individua l.net>:

Pavel Lepin wrote:

>Default User <de***********@ yahoo.comwrote in
<67*********** **@mid.individu al.net>:

The problem is that the spam comes from the 900 billion
dollar gorilla. If it was any other news service, the
Usenet Death Penalty would be in effect already.

I really don't see why the 900 billion dollarness should
even come into this.

Because 900 billion dollar gorillas have large legal
staffs.

And..? I can hardly believe GG's peers have contractual
obligations towards them along the lines of 'we hereby
agree to accept all the junk Google's users are posting and
propagate it to our peers'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

--
I'm not dead, just pinin' for the fnords.

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Pavel Lepin wrote:

>
Default User <de***********@ yahoo.comwrote in
<67************ *@mid.individua l.net>:

>Pavel Lepin wrote:

>>Default User <de***********@ yahoo.comwrote in
<67********** ***@mid.individ ual.net>:
The problem is that the spam comes from the 900 billion
dollar gorilla. If it was any other news service, the
Usenet Death Penalty would be in effect already.

I really don't see why the 900 billion dollarness should
even come into this.

Because 900 billion dollar gorillas have large legal
staffs.

And..? I can hardly believe GG's peers have contractual
obligations towards them along the lines of 'we hereby
agree to accept all the junk Google's users are posting and
propagate it to our peers'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Contracts are not the only things to consider. If a peer of Google was to
block traffic from Google Groups, Google might argue that this kind of
action is anti-competitive.
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[Pavel Lepin]

Kai-Uwe Bux <jk********@gmx .netwrote in
<fu**********@a ioe.org>:

Pavel Lepin wrote:

>Default User <de***********@ yahoo.comwrote in
<67*********** **@mid.individu al.net>:

>>Pavel Lepin wrote:
Default User <de***********@ yahoo.comwrote in
<67********* ****@mid.indivi dual.net>:
The problem is that the spam comes from the 900
billion dollar gorilla. If it was any other news
service, the Usenet Death Penalty would be in effect
already.

I really don't see why the 900 billion dollarness
should even come into this.

Because 900 billion dollar gorillas have large legal
staffs.

And..? I can hardly believe GG's peers have contractual
obligations towards them along the lines of 'we hereby
agree to accept all the junk Google's users are posting
and propagate it to our peers'. Please correct me if I'm
wrong.

Contracts are not the only things to consider. If a peer
of Google was to block traffic from Google Groups, Google
might argue that this kind of action is anti-competitive.

Oh my god, I don't want to go into this. GG is a safe haven
for spammers. Their X-Complaints-To is non-functional. They
can try to put any spin they want onto it, but I don't
understand how anyone with a functioning brain could see
that as anything but a Microsoftesque attempt to cover
their sorry asses.

Anyway, I do agree that UDP against GG is highly unlikely,
if only because their peers are a bunch of shivering
jellies shaped into vague resemblances of actual specimen
of h. sapiens sapiens, utterly lacking moral fibre or
integrity of any sort; but I do know that I'm outraged and
disgusted with Google and that I'm not going to shut up...
However, this is clearly not an appropriate forum for not
shutting up; I apologise for yet another of my many OT
intrusions on clc++, and will try to sit on my thumbs if
there's any continued discussion of this problem on the
group.

--
I'm not dead, just pinin' for the fnords.

[James Kanze]

On Apr 25, 10:13 am, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx .netwrote:

Pavel Lepin wrote:

And..? I can hardly believe GG's peers have contractual
obligations towards them along the lines of 'we hereby
agree to accept all the junk Google's users are posting and
propagate it to our peers'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Contracts are not the only things to consider. If a peer of
Google was to block traffic from Google Groups, Google might
argue that this kind of action is anti-competitive.

I don't think that Google really would care. The problem is
that a provider which tries to quarantine Google will find
itself with very few customers, very quickly. A lot of people
find Google useful, despite what's happening here.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[Default User]

James Kanze wrote:

On Apr 25, 10:13 am, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx .netwrote:

Pavel Lepin wrote:

And..? I can hardly believe GG's peers have contractual
obligations towards them along the lines of 'we hereby
agree to accept all the junk Google's users are posting and
propagate it to our peers'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Contracts are not the only things to consider. If a peer of
Google was to block traffic from Google Groups, Google might
argue that this kind of action is anti-competitive.

I don't think that Google really would care. The problem is
that a provider which tries to quarantine Google will find
itself with very few customers, very quickly. A lot of people
find Google useful, despite what's happening here.

There's a difference between blocking everything from Google and doing
a UDP on GG posts. However, the converse is there too. Google might
decide to cut off access from the IP ranges of the UDP participants. Or
they might lean on upstream providers. Or they might pick out somebody
and sue them under restraint of trade or some such thing. When you have
lawyers on staff, you can do stuff like that.

Of course, they could get their act together and live by their avowed
motto.

Brian