What the heck has happened here?
Wooly
here there was plenty of discussion going on relevant to the group name.
Now it looks like about 90% spam.
How sad.
Anthony Matonak
All that is required for spammers to take over is for good
posters to do nothing.
Anthony
simon
Pity that there is nothing effective 'good posters' can do about spammers.
In spades with the spam done using google.
clams casino
After forwarding perhaps a hundred complaints to Google groups, hotmail
& fjdcb.fz.fj.cn & cndata.com, there has been NO let up in the Chinese
shoewear / handbag spam.
They seem to comprise about 75% of the spam on this newsgroup. Most of
the rest seems to be from a bloger in India via airtel.in..
Barbara R
Does anyone have the authority to moderate?
Barbara R
Rod Speed
> Who owns this group?
No one does.
> Does anyone have the authority to moderate?
Nope, its not a moderated group.
George
Any suggestions are welcome. It seems about 99.97% of the spam is posted
using Google groups and usually someone trying to get officially
encouraged click revenue for their Google owned blogspot. Any spam
forwarded to Google simply generates a robatic reply that they are sure
they are not a problem.
Google is truly the spammers best friend.
Warren Block
Anthony Matonak
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>> Wooly wrote:
>>> I mostly gave up on newsgroups for quite a while...Last time I
>>> checked here there was plenty of discussion going on relevant to the
>>> group name. Now it looks like about 90% spam.
>>> How sad.
>>
>> All that is required for spammers to take over is for good
>> posters to do nothing.
>
> using Google groups and usually someone trying to get officially
> encouraged click revenue for their Google owned blogspot. Any spam
> forwarded to Google simply generates a robatic reply that they are sure
> they are not a problem.
>
> Google is truly the spammers best friend.
It sounds like grounds for a lawsuit. If it's googles fault then maybe
they should pay for the damages they do.
Anthony
simon
Mindlessly silly and it aint gunna happen, you watch.
Its stupid killfiling all googlegroups posts, because they arent all spam, and
that wont do a damned thing about the fools that respond to spam either.
Killfiling both googlegroups and outlook is even more terminally silly.
simon
Only to fools.
> If it's googles fault then maybe they should pay for the damages they do.
Taint gunna happen, try it and see.
William Souden
Look, after a few weeks of coherency welfare Rod has a new name. The
means the childish bots are on the horizon as he went off his meds again.
Warren Block
> Warren Block <wbl...@wonkity.com> wrote:
>> simon <simo...@zap.com> wrote:
>>> Anthony Matonak <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> Wooly wrote:
>>>>> I mostly gave up on newsgroups for quite a while...Last time I
>>>>> checked here there was plenty of discussion going on relevant to
>>>>> the group name. Now it looks like about 90% spam.
>>>>> How sad.
>>>>
>>>> All that is required for spammers to take over is for good posters
>>>> to do nothing.
>>>
>>> Pity that there is nothing effective 'good posters' can do about
>>> spammers.
>>>
>>> In spades with the spam done using google.
>>
>> http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
>
> Mindlessly silly and it aint gunna happen, you watch.
Already happened for me and more than a few others. Every so often I
turn off the filters to see if I'm missing anything. So far, there's
been nothing that stopped me from turning those filters back on.
It's made this group usable again.
> Its stupid killfiling all googlegroups posts, because they arent all spam, and
> that wont do a damned thing about the fools that respond to spam either.
I'm willing to give up the 1% of GG posts that aren't spam in order to
keep newsgroups usable. As far as responders, there are a few, but it's
not nearly as bad once all the real spam has been filtered.
> Killfiling both googlegroups and outlook is even more terminally silly.
I don't filter Outlook at present. Oddly enough, the worst top- and
mis-posters disappeared along with GG.
simon
> simon <simo...@zap.com> wrote:
>> Warren Block <wbl...@wonkity.com> wrote:
>>> simon <simo...@zap.com> wrote:
>>>> Anthony Matonak <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> Wooly wrote:
>>>>>> I mostly gave up on newsgroups for quite a while...Last time I
>>>>>> checked here there was plenty of discussion going on relevant to
>>>>>> the group name. Now it looks like about 90% spam.
>>>>>> How sad.
>>>>>
>>>>> All that is required for spammers to take over is for good posters
>>>>> to do nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Pity that there is nothing effective 'good posters' can do about
>>>> spammers.
>>>>
>>>> In spades with the spam done using google.
>>>
>>> http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
>>
>> Mindlessly silly and it aint gunna happen, you watch.
> Already happened for me and more than a few others.
All that has happened is that the amount of spam you see
is reduced a little. Plenty use a news server that drops the
worst of the spam and that doesnt lose the non spam posts
from those who choose to use groupsgoogle.
> Every so often I turn off the filters to see if I'm missing anything. So far,
> there's been nothing that stopped me from turning those filters back on.
> It's made this group usable again.
Its perfectly useable without the filters, its trivial to
recognise the spam and just ignore it, dont even read it.
>> Its stupid killfiling all googlegroups posts, because they arent all spam, and
>> that wont do a damned thing about the fools that respond to spam either.
> I'm willing to give up the 1% of GG posts that
> aren't spam in order to keep newsgroups usable.
Its perfectly useable without the filters, its trivial to
recognise the spam and just ignore it, dont even read it.
> As far as responders, there are a few, but it's not
> nearly as bad once all the real spam has been filtered.
>> Killfiling both googlegroups and outlook is even more terminally silly.
> I don't filter Outlook at present.
Only a fool would do that given that thats what the majority of posters use.
> Oddly enough, the worst top- and mis-posters disappeared along with GG.
And plenty of worthwhile posts as well.
Sure, you can ignore anything you like, but its silly to be dropping what
is worth reading, you might as well just stop reading the group entirely.
rick++
but when he does its tens of thosuands of messages to all the
newsgroups.
Bill
"Wooly" wrote in message
Seerialmom
Today (and yesterday apparently) the stupid MI5 thing has overwhelmed
almost every newsgroup I checked today. But some are still trying to
keep it on-topic.
wat...@moog.netaxs.com
Yeah, but since he always puts "MI5" somwhere in the "From:" line, he's easy
to killfile. I've had him killfiled so long, I was surprised to hear he's
back spewing again.
W.
Shawn Hirn
<46c8d664$0$27790$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"simon" <simo...@zap.com> wrote:
Right. Pay whom?
Anthony Matonak
> "simon" <simo...@zap.com> wrote:
>> Anthony Matonak <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>> George wrote:
>>>> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>>>>> All that is required for spammers to take over is for good
>>>>> posters to do nothing.
>>>>
>>> It sounds like grounds for a lawsuit.
>>
>
Presumably this would be a class action lawsuit on behalf of everyone
who has to deal with Google generated spam on the newsgroups. As with
most class action lawsuits the only ones who get paid are the lawyers.
Still, even if it's only the lawyers who get paid, this could still
discourage Google from fostering and protecting spammers. They might
even start enforcing their own terms of service.
Anthony
Shawn Hirn
Anthony Matonak <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
But the M15 spam that precipitated the start of this thread did not come
from Google as far as I can tell. Google may be an conduit for lots of
Usenet spam, but it is by no means the only one.
clams casino
> Google may be an conduit for lots of
>Usenet spam, but it is by no means the only one.
>
>
just 95%