| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Nov 21 09:30AM In article <ujfjn2$ae10$1@dont-email.me>, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: ... >for Windows and Linux (and I guess also for Macs). They are not >particularly difficult to install or use, and no one needs to use an OS >that they don't want to use. I think you misunderstood his point. The point is that it is too easy (currently) to automate the process of signing up with Google. This makes it easy to mass-spam the newsgroups. The whole point of his post is that we want it to be more difficult to automate the process of signing up with Google. But there is a limit as to how far to go on this road, since at some point (if you keep making it harder and harder to sign up for Google), it becomes easier (for the spammer/automater) to use some other newsreader (such as tin). Got it now? >The spammers are amateurs. Any professional spammer group would know >perfectly well that flooding technical Usenet groups with Thai casino >adverts is useless. As another poster has suggested, I think something more nefarious is going on. We should not assume that this is just another instance of the usual "some poor schmuck in some god-forsaken third world shithole trying desperately to make a few bucks so that they don't have to spend their lives in grinding poverty" case. In fact, I think Google is somehow in on it - i.e., from their POV, this mess is a feature, not a bug. I make no assertion as to the details of this, and I don't think we do ourselves any favors speculating about it. >> the surreptitious control of bad actors. >I don't blame /everything/ on Google - but this one is most certainly >their fault. Just to be clear, my underlying suggestion that I want Google to ban (i.e., make read-only) all the newsgroups is obviously a "not optimal, but perhaps practical" sort of solution. They either can't or won't actually fix the problem, so getting them out of the mess is the best we can hope for. By the way, actually when you think about it, the idea of Google making newsgroups read-only might actually be a good long-term solution. That would allow newcomers (which as the other poster notes, we need to have a steady stream of) to sample the wares w/o being able to post. They would be encouraged to look around, decide they like it, then be instructed on how to get setup with a real newsreader and news server. Works for everybody! -- "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither." |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Nov 21 04:47PM +0100 On 21/11/2023 10:30, Kenny McCormack wrote: >> particularly difficult to install or use, and no one needs to use an OS >> that they don't want to use. > I think you misunderstood his point. Perhaps. > The point is that it is too easy > (currently) to automate the process of signing up with Google. This makes > it easy to mass-spam the newsgroups. Yes, that's what I wrote. > harder and harder to sign up for Google), it becomes easier (for the > spammer/automater) to use some other newsreader (such as tin). > Got it now? It is already extremely easy to use a newsreader (other than tin). But it typically involves a few google searches to find a free server :-) Fair enough, however - I now see the point of Mike's post. I don't think Google really see GG as a major part of their services. They probably like having the Usenet archives, because they like all sorts of information, but they certainly don't put much effort into caring for the GG interface. It would take very little to make it much more attractive to Usenet regulars, if they were interested in competing for users. > "some poor schmuck in some god-forsaken third world shithole trying > desperately to make a few bucks so that they don't have to spend their > lives in grinding poverty" case. I am assuming incompetence or accident until I have reason to believe there is a cunning conspiracy here. I am not ruling out something intentional and evil, but I haven't yet seen convincing evidence. (I'm also not sure it really matters very much - it makes no difference to how annoying it is, or how little we can do about it.) > make read-only) all the newsgroups is obviously a "not optimal, but perhaps > practical" sort of solution. They either can't or won't actually fix the > problem, so getting them out of the mess is the best we can hope for. Agreed. > be encouraged to look around, decide they like it, then be instructed on > how to get setup with a real newsreader and news server. Works for > everybody! Even better would be to combine this with a decent web interface to Usenet from someone other than Google (since Google can't seem to do it properly). While many people (including me) find real newsreaders much better than any web interface would be, there are still legitimate uses for some people to use web interfaces. |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Nov 21 04:40PM In article <ujijeg$sq9h$1@dont-email.me>, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: ... >properly). While many people (including me) find real newsreaders much >better than any web interface would be, there are still legitimate uses >for some people to use web interfaces. Just out of curiosity, is there any advantage to a "web interface" (e.g., GG) vs a GUI (Windows/Mac/whatever) newsreader (Thunderbird, Claws, Forte, etc) ? Isn't it pretty much the same thing? (Of course, I understand the difference "under the hood", but I'm talking here about what the typical naive user sees and understands) -- "Everything Roy (aka, AU8YOG) touches turns to crap." --citizens of alt.obituaries-- |
| Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>: Nov 21 11:49AM -0500 On 11/21/23 11:40 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote: > etc) ? Isn't it pretty much the same thing? > (Of course, I understand the difference "under the hood", but I'm talking > here about what the typical naive user sees and understands) One advantage is it doesn't need to be "installed" or "updated" since it doesn't actually live on the users computers. It also automatically get shared with all your "devices", even if they are using different operating systems. The programs you listed won't work on a Phone or Tablet (at least not any of the popular ones), so wouldn't be usable by a person who is largely "mobile". |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Nov 21 04:49PM >Just out of curiosity, is there any advantage to a "web interface" (e.g., >GG) vs a GUI (Windows/Mac/whatever) newsreader (Thunderbird, Claws, Forte, >etc) ? Isn't it pretty much the same thing? Yes. A web interface can be often used when the outbound NNTP port is blocked, for instance. |
| Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>: Nov 21 10:03PM +0200 On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 11:49:02 -0500 > they are using different operating systems. The programs you listed > won't work on a Phone or Tablet (at least not any of the popular > ones), so wouldn't be usable by a person who is largely "mobile". More so, "device" or computer does not even have to be yours. |
| Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>: Nov 21 12:09PM -0800 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: [...] > effort into caring for the GG interface. It would take very little > to make it much more attractive to Usenet regulars, if they were > interested in competing for users. [...] For example, Google could set up an NNTP server. But it's hard to see how that would make money for them, and Google is not a charity. (Possibly they could insert unobtrusive ads into the NNTP feed, but the audience likely isn't big enough for that to be worthwhile.) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Will write code for food. void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */ |
| Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>: Nov 21 10:16PM +0200 > it properly). While many people (including me) find real newsreaders > much better than any web interface would be, there are still > legitimate uses for some people to use web interfaces. That's what https://www.novabbs.com/devel/ is. Not the whole usenet, not even a major part of it, but most groups that I am interested in are there. By chance comp.editors that was mentioned in original post of this topic is not there. I am afraid that sooner rather than later spammers will find this particular portal. I don't think that they will be able to spam through it, but in attempts to do it they could easily degrade the quality of service. |
| Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>: Nov 21 10:23PM +0200 On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 16:49:34 GMT > >Claws, Forte, etc) ? Isn't it pretty much the same thing? > Yes. A web interface can be often used when the outbound NNTP port > is blocked, for instance. eternal-september.org can serve via HTTP port. |
| Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>: Nov 21 02:42PM -0600 On 11/19/2023 5:23 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote: > minute, 24/7. > So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all > newsgroups, not just these 2? Ray Banana (E-S admin) blocked a back door that somebody had installed this morning that GG spam was coming through. He may have gotten the rest of it. The spammers will be looking for more back doors though. Lynn |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Nov 21 10:25AM +0100 Am 20.11.2023 um 21:18 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > Did you read that article on MSDN as well? Iirc, its around 20 years old. Has WFMO ever changed ? |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment