Call for a UDP against Google Groups
John Corliss
Groups and that Google will not respond to any usnet abuse complaints
against them. As a result, many groups are now being flooded with spam
that is very hard to stop.
--
Regards from John Corliss
Lionel
<jcor...@fake.invalid> opined:
>My reason is simple. Spammers know that they can post through Google
>Groups and that Google will not respond to any usnet abuse complaints
>against them. As a result, many groups are now being flooded with spam
>that is very hard to stop.
Yep, because it takes weeks to get Google to actually take a look at
their own posting archive for their reported lusers, & grudgingly
admit that maybe their TOS is being violated, & in the meantime, their
luser has signed up for another dozen or two freebie email accounts &
used them to get Google posting accounts.
And of course Google claim their automated system prevents abuse, &
refuse to look at the evidence that it doesn't.
Unfortunately, Google has very cosy peering arrangements with several
major commercial news providers, so they prefer to look the other way.
All of this sucks, but there doesn't see to be anyone in a position to
do anything about it & who actually cares.
If you want to push for some action, you might try
news.admin.net-abuse.policy, because this group is no longer read by
any newsadmins. (It's moderated quite strictly, so read the FAQ before
postig there.)
Please feel free to drop me a line if you do decide to take it there,
because I'd like to bring the subject up again myself.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Doc O'Leary
John Corliss <jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> My reason is simple. Spammers know that they can post through Google
> Groups and that Google will not respond to any usnet abuse complaints
> against them. As a result, many groups are now being flooded with spam
> that is very hard to stop.
It's pretty easy to kill if you have a newsreader with decent filtering.
Still, what you say about their low signal-to-noise ratio is true, and I
wouldn't mind a formal UDP.
--
My personal UDP list: heapnode.com, buzzardnews.com, 4ax.com, googlegroups.com
Darrell Larose
"Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@1q2006.subsume.com> wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-17...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
A UDP should also include a "Media Release" to slash.dot, news.cnet and
other outlets so Google gets public bad press
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrote:
>
>> My reason is simple. Spammers know that they can post through Google
>> Groups and that Google will not respond to any usnet abuse complaints
>> against them. As a result, many groups are now being flooded with spam
>> that is very hard to stop.
>
> It's pretty easy to kill if you have a newsreader with decent filtering.
> Still, what you say about their low signal-to-noise ratio is true, and I
> wouldn't mind a formal UDP.
Doc,
I agree about the killfile, but of course that same argument could be
applied to any ISP or other service that allows themselves to be used
for unbridled spamming. But then I'm sure you see that point because you
agree with the call for a UDP. 80)>
John Corliss
> Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>
>>> My reason is simple. Spammers know that they can post through Google
>>> Groups and that Google will not respond to any usnet abuse complaints
>>> against them. As a result, many groups are now being flooded with spam
>>> that is very hard to stop.
>>
>> It's pretty easy to kill if you have a newsreader with decent filtering.
>> Still, what you say about their low signal-to-noise ratio is true, and I
>> wouldn't mind a formal UDP.
>>
>> googlegroups.com
>
> A UDP should also include a "Media Release" to slash.dot, news.cnet and
> other outlets so Google gets public bad press
Excellent idea. Any leads on how one would go about doing that?
Howard Knight
: In article <120e0a0...@corp.supernews.com>,
: John Corliss <jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:
:
: > My reason is simple. Spammers know that they can post through Google
: > Groups and that Google will not respond to any usnet abuse complaints
: > against them. As a result, many groups are now being flooded with spam
: > that is very hard to stop.
:
: It's pretty easy to kill if you have a newsreader with decent filtering.
: Still, what you say about their low signal-to-noise ratio is true, and I
: wouldn't mind a formal UDP.
Do you have any data to back up that claim? I haven't checked,
but I suspect that they're signal-to-noise ratio is high. Also,
I'd guess that the actuall spam numbers are low compaired to
other NSP spam sources.
Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of spam coming from Google and
they are too lazy or incompetent to deal with it in a exceptable
manner. But, there are other sites out there that are more deserving
of a UDP.
Howard
Doc O'Leary
howar...@yaEXPUNGEhoo.com (Howard Knight) wrote:
> Do you have any data to back up that claim? I haven't checked,
> but I suspect that they're signal-to-noise ratio is high. Also,
> I'd guess that the actuall spam numbers are low compaired to
> other NSP spam sources.
Why would you guess that, because they're Google? You don't have any
more hard data than I do right now, so I don't see what you base your
judgement on. Myself, when I get suspicious of a lot of crap traffic
coming through a provider, I set up a filter to highlight before I kill.
By my own measure, googlegroups.com spat out many more moronic posts
(not just outright spam, mind you) than quality ones. That being the
case, I was comfortable changing it to a kill. Hardly an analysis that
a formal UDP might need, but clearly I'm not alone in thinking that
Google Groups works best as a read-only archive.
> Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of spam coming from Google and
> they are too lazy or incompetent to deal with it in a exceptable
> manner. But, there are other sites out there that are more deserving
> of a UDP.
Given their high profile and corporate claims of goodness, I would say
nobody else is in more need of cleaning up their act in a timely manner.
They should not be allowed to allow posting without also shouldering the
burden of acceptable abuse procedures. I certainly don't miss them, and
I think the burden falls on you to prove they have traffic worth peering.
Howard Knight
: howar...@yaEXPUNGEhoo.com (Howard Knight) wrote:
:
: > Do you have any data to back up that claim? I haven't checked,
: > but I suspect that they're signal-to-noise ratio is high. Also,
: > I'd guess that the actuall spam numbers are low compaired to
: > other NSP spam sources.
:
: Why would you guess that, because they're Google?
About a year ago, getting fed up with all the Google spam myself,
I started collecting data on all the google spam in the adult
newsgroups (alt.sex.*, alt.personals.*, etc.). I quickly found
out that compared to the other spam out there, the Google spam
didn't amount to much. (Some individual spammers were pumping out
a magnitude more spam per day than all the google spam combined.)
: You don't have any more hard data than I do right now, so I don't
: see what you base your judgement on.
Just as a quick check, I took a newsgroup that the original poster
to this thread frequents: alt.comp.freeware. Here are the number
of posts from Google to that newsgroup in the last week:
Date Good Spam
---- ---- ----
2/26 22 0
2/27 18 0
2/28 34 2
3/01 38 6
3/02 23 1
3/03 43 0
3/04 26 0
That amounts to about 4% spam. Yes, that's a lot, but clearly
the signal-to-noise ration is not low.
: By my own measure, googlegroups.com spat out many more moronic posts
: (not just outright spam, mind you) than quality ones.
Sites don't get UDPed for moronic posts. Otherwise, AOL and WEBTV
would have been UDPed years ago.
: > Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of spam coming from Google and
: > they are too lazy or incompetent to deal with it in a exceptable
: > manner. But, there are other sites out there that are more deserving
: > of a UDP.
:
: Given their high profile and corporate claims of goodness, I would say
: nobody else is in more need of cleaning up their act in a timely manner.
I will agree with you there. Google leaves much to be desired when
it comes to acting on abuse complaints. Still, there are other NSPs
out there that are much more neglegent than Google.
: They should not be allowed to allow posting without also shouldering the
: burden of acceptable abuse procedures. I certainly don't miss them, and
: I think the burden falls on you to prove they have traffic worth peering.
I'm not the one asking for a UDP. The burden does not fall on me.
Howard
Doc O'Leary
howar...@yaEXPUNGEhoo.com (Howard Knight) wrote:
> About a year ago, getting fed up with all the Google spam myself,
> I started collecting data on all the google spam in the adult
> newsgroups (alt.sex.*, alt.personals.*, etc.). I quickly found
> out that compared to the other spam out there, the Google spam
> didn't amount to much. (Some individual spammers were pumping out
> a magnitude more spam per day than all the google spam combined.)
That seems like a sampling with a built in flaw. That is, how fine a
line can you draw in those kinds of groups for what is spam such that
Google's contribution is significant? It is not at all obvious to me,
were I an ISP, that a commercial post for sex services to alt.sex is
spam (and, yes, I have been around long enough to remember when alt.sex
was an excellent discussion group). If you really wanted to make a
case, you would have collected data about a random sample of groups, or
simply collected all Google posts and examined them.
> That amounts to about 4% spam. Yes, that's a lot, but clearly
> the signal-to-noise ration is not low.
Not all noise is spam. My measure of "Good" is clearly far more strict
than yours. By that measure I have suffered the pain of AOL and WebTV
users, but what I have seen coming from Google servers has been worse.
Hell, the very group you point to seems to be a clearing house of "I
can't use Google to find software" questions, making it particularly
ironic that they're posting *through* Google about their inability to
search for freeware.
> Sites don't get UDPed for moronic posts. Otherwise, AOL and WEBTV
> would have been UDPed years ago.
But have either been as unresponsive as Google has been to the outright
abuse of their servers? Yeah, the morons are there, but what got me
pissed at Google is that the spammers have remained active with
seemingly no hope of end *despite* their own Gmail technology for spam
filtering. It's that kind of disregard that makes me think a formal UDP
is not a bad idea.
> I will agree with you there. Google leaves much to be desired when
> it comes to acting on abuse complaints. Still, there are other NSPs
> out there that are much more neglegent than Google.
But they are not Google! Please name one of those others you continue
to refer to. I expect I'll find their traffic does not clog the
newsgroups I read half as much as I've seen Google allow.
> I'm not the one asking for a UDP. The burden does not fall on me.
I'm not asking for the UDP either, I merely said I wouldn't mind it.
You still have yet to point to anything particularly useful coming out
of Google's Usenet servers, and so I'll continue to be quite happy with
my personal choice to kill googlegroups.com posts.
Lionel
<drolear...@1q2006.subsume.com> opined:
>In article <120mont...@corp.supernews.com>,
> howar...@yaEXPUNGEhoo.com (Howard Knight) wrote:
[...]
>> Sites don't get UDPed for moronic posts. Otherwise, AOL and WEBTV
>> would have been UDPed years ago.
>
>But have either been as unresponsive as Google has been to the outright
>abuse of their servers? Yeah, the morons are there, but what got me
>pissed at Google is that the spammers have remained active with
>seemingly no hope of end *despite* their own Gmail technology for spam
>filtering. It's that kind of disregard that makes me think a formal UDP
>is not a bad idea.
>
>> I will agree with you there. Google leaves much to be desired when
>> it comes to acting on abuse complaints. Still, there are other NSPs
>> out there that are much more neglegent than Google.
Name 3 of them. Sure, I've seen a few who ignore abuse@ complaints,
but so far, Google is the only one with the sheer unmitigated
arrogance to claim that /they/ aren't bound by any of the standard
Usenet rules (& who refuse to recognise even the existance of rules
other their own rules for 'Google Groups' - which is what they call
Usenet).
Forget about reporting posts whose net-abusiveness is open to honest
questioning - Google respond to meticulously-documented reports of
blatant BI>100 Usenet spam from their users with a fresh, steaming
nugget from their IgnoreBot3000(tm) abuse-responder, which assumes
that the reporter is a whiny little girl who's bitching about someone
saying mean things about their Mommy.
And don't get me started on the kind of arrogance that makes Google
think they are the only provider on the planet whose programmers are
so omniscient that their "automated abuse prevention systems" CANNOT
POSSIBLY screw up - or require monitoring - much less be tricked,
gamed or bypassed. (Which, BTW, they most definitely can be.)
>But they are not Google!
Nor do they boast of having the motto: "Don't be evil", while
blatantly pissing on all the rules other news providers are expected
to conform to. That's the bit that really pisses me off. I see all the
crap that providers like Altopia get thrown at them - despite the fact
that reports of AUP violations to Altopia are both read & acted upon -
while Google gets a free pass to do whatever the hell it pleases,
which, apparently, is to treat Usenet newsgroups as herds of peons
whose sole reason for existance is to provide answers to questions
from random Google-Groups users.
> Please name one of those others you continue
>to refer to. I expect I'll find their traffic does not clog the
>newsgroups I read half as much as I've seen Google allow.
As a matter of fact, I've actually found that the small 'Freedom of
Speech" orientated news services I've contacted about net-abuse issues
are actually a lot quicker to enforce their AUP than Google is. And
Google is the only one I've ever seen that claims that Usenet is
"Google Groups", & that they have complete discretion as to what is or
isn't permitted. (None of which has the slightest relationship to
their actual AUP, BTW.)
>> I'm not the one asking for a UDP. The burden does not fall on me.
>
>I'm not asking for the UDP either, I merely said I wouldn't mind it.
>You still have yet to point to anything particularly useful coming out
>of Google's Usenet servers, and so I'll continue to be quite happy with
>my personal choice to kill googlegroups.com posts.
Personally, I think that any news-service that claims that the
standard Usenet rules don't apply to it, hands out freebie accounts in
any quantity a net-abuser desires, & has a non-responsive abuse@ staff
is exactly the kind of news service for which UDP's were invented.
(And yes, I was here during the first UDPs - which were called to deal
with the exact same behaviour exhibited by Google.)
Frank Slootweg
[deleted]
> 'Google Groups' - which is what they call Usenet).
Do *they* (i.e Google) actually call Google Groups "Usenet"? If so,
cite please.
[deleted]
> And Google is the only one I've ever seen that claims that Usenet is
> "Google Groups",
Same.
[deleted]
> Personally, I think that any news-service that claims that the
> standard Usenet rules don't apply to it,
Same.
Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like what's coming out of
Google Groups and how they (Google) do (not) respond to (real) spam,
AUP/TOS/etc. violations, etc., but I think that part of the problem is
that people claim that Google says things, claims things, etc., while in
reality they do nothing of the sort, and actually their *silence* is the
main problem, not their statements.
Not to shift the problem/responsibility, but
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.2/32.830
is considered a rather bad newsreader as far as scoring/filtering/
killing is concerned. Wouldn't you be better off by at least not seeing
some of the stuff which bothers you so much, instead of fighting
windmills like Google Groups. (Or are you already using something like
Nfilter or Hamster?)
FWIW, *my* main problem with Google Groups is the large percentage of
clueless/lazy/etc. posters, off-topic postings, etc., but there's
nothing a UDP can do about that, and most AUPs/TsOS do not require that
posters have an IQ greater than their age :-)
Good luck with your quest, and if you need more windmills, we still
have plenty of them, but so do you guys! :-)
[deleted]
Lionel
opined:
>Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>[deleted]
>
>> 'Google Groups' - which is what they call Usenet).
>
> Do *they* (i.e Google) actually call Google Groups "Usenet"?
No, they call Usenet 'Google Groups', as I said in the quoted text.
If you report *Usenet net-abuse* to them, they will tell you that it
(regardless of what it is, so I assume that no human ever sees abuse
email) is not a violation of 'Google Groups' rules (even when it is),
& gives several patronising pieces of advice, & a couple of
suggestions. that are actually harmful in a Usenet contaxt.
>If so,
>cite please.
Send them a spam report, quoting full Usenet headers, etc. Unless
their policy of the last 5 years or so has suddenly changed since the
last time I wasted my time writing them a report, you'll get back
their standard boilerplate, which, as I've already stated, refers
solely to 'Google Groups', & states that they will do nothing whatever
with your report.
I'd quote you one now, but I gave up on reporting net-abuse to them
about a year ago, & my collection of Google IgnoreBot3000(tm)
boilerplates has long since been recycled.
>[deleted]
>
>> And Google is the only one I've ever seen that claims that Usenet is
>> "Google Groups",
>
> Same.
Again, read their standard Auto-Ack for anything sent to the abuse
address in every Google post. Everyone who's sent them a report in the
last few years will be able to confirm what I'm saying.
>[deleted]
>
>> Personally, I think that any news-service that claims that the
>> standard Usenet rules don't apply to it,
>
> Same.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like what's coming out of
>Google Groups and how they (Google) do (not) respond to (real) spam,
>AUP/TOS/etc. violations, etc., but I think that part of the problem is
>that people claim that Google says things, claims things, etc., while in
>reality they do nothing of the sort, and actually their *silence* is the
>main problem, not their statements.
Have you ever written to their abuse address (the one in every Google
post) with a spam or net-abuse report? - I have, & each time, the
result has been exactly as I've described it. You can easily verify my
claim by contacting their abuse address yourself.
> Not to shift the problem/responsibility, but
>
>> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.2/32.830
>
>is considered a rather bad newsreader as far as scoring/filtering/
>killing is concerned.
The paid version is actually not bad all. Its only serious weakness is
that you can't filter on the overview data - you have to wait until
you actually pulling down the headers. Of course that's easily fixed
with an inline filter like nifilter/hamster, etc.
Wouldn't you be better off by at least not seeing
>some of the stuff which bothers you so much, instead of fighting
>windmills like Google Groups. (Or are you already using something like
>Nfilter or Hamster?)
I prefer to see the world as it is, warts & all. I sometimes write a
quick ad-hoc filter when a group is so clogged with noise that I'
having trouble finding posts I wish to read. My beef with Google is
not the cluelessness of its users, but with its encouragement of
Usenet net-abuse.
(& yes, if I want to filter things, I have a plethora of options
available to me.)
> FWIW, *my* main problem with Google Groups is the large percentage of
>clueless/lazy/etc. posters, off-topic postings, etc., but there's
>nothing a UDP can do about that, and most AUPs/TsOS do not require that
>posters have an IQ greater than their age :-)
Agreed. (That said, it'd nice if Google made even a token effort to
remind their users that newsgroups *are not* staffed with Google
employees who live for the opportunity to answer their clueless,
off-topic questions. (And BTW, if you don't know why Google users
behave that way, go take a look a the Google Groups UI, rather than
the 'advanced search' that most Usenet users skip to - you'll find the
experience educational.)
But no, that's not why I think they should be UDPed - they should be
UDPed for supporting net-abuse, & refusing to deal with their
net-abusive users.
Lionel
>about a year ago, & my collection of Google IgnoreBot3000(tm)
>boilerplates has long since been recycled.
Okay, having spotted a BI-heavy ad being spammed by a Google user this
morning, I took the opportunity to give Google the benfit of the doubt
by reporting the spam, to see if aybe they've cleaned up their act
since I last reported anything to the IgnoreBot3000(tm) that
persons(?) the abuse@ mailbox. The short answer is 'no', & the
boilerplate is the same as it's always been. Now, in reading the
following, bear in mind that it's an auto-response to a bog-standard
Usenet spam report (full headers, of course) for a multiposted &
xposted ad with a BI of at least 25:
---------------
To: "Lionel" <use...@imagenoir.com>
From: groups-...@google.com
Subject: Re: [#49194353] Usenet spam from one of your users.
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:15:02 -0000
Auto-Submitted: auto-replied
Thank you for your note. Google does not regularly monitor or censor
postings sent to Google Groups, but we do try to prevent wide-scale
spam and other forms of Usenet abuse. Please be assured that the
information you sent to us is being collected and taken into account.
While we understand how annoying off-topic posts can be, we aren't
able to pursue most complaints we receive about them. We are using the
information you provide to make large-scale improvements in preventing
abuse. We appreciate your help in our efforts to increase the quality
of Google Groups.
Replies to this email address will not be received. If you have a
general Google Groups question or wish to report a post that you
suspect is illegal, please visit our Help Center at
http://groups-beta.google.com/support
Regards,
The Google Team
---------------
Notice the complete lack of acknowledgement that there is even is such
a thing as Usenet, THAT THEIR USER IS SPAMMING, & their assumption
that my email is a whine about the content of someone's 'Google
Groups' post. Notice their clueless/arrogant wittering about 'Google
Groups' instead of Usenet, & the assumption that Usenet has no rules &
is merely a subset of 'Google Groups'. Now before anyone says
something like: "Oh, but they said they collected the information &
took it into account!", well maybe they actually do, but I've never
yet seen them stop a spam-run, or even nuke a spammer or other
net-abusers *free* account on their system. Hell, I've seen ongoing
spam-runs of identical posts from Google that have continued for
literally months, despite being reported by dozens of people, so if
they claim they actually *use* data from spam reports, they're simply
lying.
Now remember that this is the same boilerplate lack-of-response
they've been using for at least five years now, & I think you can see
how little Google cares about Usenets rules, & why so much crap spews
into Usenet from Googles wannabe-Usenet, 'Google Groups'.
Doug Freyburger
>
> Okay, having spotted a BI-heavy ad being spammed by a Google user this
> morning, I took the opportunity to give Google the benfit of the doubt
> by reporting the spam, to see if aybe they've cleaned up their act
> since I last reported anything to the IgnoreBot3000(tm) that
> persons(?) the abuse@ mailbox. The short answer is 'no', & the
> boilerplate is the same as it's always been. Now, in reading the
> following, bear in mind that it's an auto-response to a bog-standard
> Usenet spam report (full headers, of course) for a multiposted &
> xposted ad with a BI of at least 25:
> ---------------
> postings sent to Google Groups
The one word I note in this is "to". They say it was a posting
sent TO Google groups. As in the username on the post might
have been X...@gmail.com, but the point of origin according to
them was some site other than Google and they received it
over one of their feeds not from one of their own users.
I take it they said this in error, right? That according to the
path line it started on their servers and according to the
messageID it started on their servers? Yeah, I've gotten that
erroneous response from them as well. It's like they have a
reply-bot that doesn't check the actual point of origin for the
post in question. Argh.
Then again a few times I've complained to them about posts
that list X...@gmail.com on the user line and gotten back that
response. Checking to the orginal post sometimes show its
point of origin was elsewhere. So they don't get it wrong
*every* time just lots of times. Lesson learned, I check more
than the username before bothering to complain to them now.
> Notice the complete lack of acknowledgement that there is even is such
> a thing as Usenet, THAT THEIR USER IS SPAMMING, & their assumption
> that my email is a whine about the content of someone's 'Google
> Groups' post. Notice their clueless/arrogant wittering about 'Google
> Groups' instead of Usenet, & the assumption that Usenet has no rules &
> is merely a subset of 'Google Groups'. Now before anyone says
> something like: "Oh, but they said they collected the information &
> took it into account!", well maybe they actually do, but I've never
> yet seen them stop a spam-run, or even nuke a spammer or other
> net-abusers *free* account on their system. Hell, I've seen ongoing
> spam-runs of identical posts from Google that have continued for
> literally months, despite being reported by dozens of people, so if
> they claim they actually *use* data from spam reports, they're simply
> lying.
I'm not convinced that they drop the data on the floor. I figure
they use it to set their ad rates, to figure who to market their
ads to and so on. Anyone spamming through them just might
want to do paid ads as well. ;^)
Lionel
opined:
>Lionel wrote:
[Standard Google IgnoreBot3000(tm) "Shut up & eat your spam, Peon"
message]
>> ---------------
>> Thank you for your note. Google does not regularly monitor or censor
>> postings sent to Google Groups
>
>The one word I note in this is "to". They say it was a posting
>sent TO Google groups. As in the username on the post might
>have been X...@gmail.com, but the point of origin according to
>them was some site other than Google and they received it
>over one of their feeds not from one of their own users.
No, it was posted from Google, from a standard Google user account.
>I take it they said this in error, right?
No, they said it because that it is their standard boilerplate
response to *any* spam or net-abuse report sent to the abuse@ address
that Google puts in the headers of each post that originates from
Google itself.
> That according to the
>path line it started on their servers and according to the
>messageID it started on their servers? Yeah, I've gotten that
>erroneous response from them as well. It's like they have a
>reply-bot that doesn't check the actual point of origin for the
>post in question. Argh.
Well yeah, because they *do* have a reply-bot that doesn't check
anything, AFAICT.
It's worth mentioning that the Abuse address that Google puts in its
Usenet posts is purely for the benefit of the Usenet side of the sewer
pipe, because Google-Groups users who wish to complain about a post
simply have to hit the 'report this' button that appears on each post
when it's read via the Google-Groups UI on their web-browser.
>Then again a few times I've complained to them about posts
>that list X...@gmail.com on the user line and gotten back that
>response. Checking to the orginal post sometimes show its
>point of origin was elsewhere. So they don't get it wrong
>*every* time just lots of times. Lesson learned, I check more
>than the username before bothering to complain to them now.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but how would a post that's *not* from
Google aquire the standard Google groups-abuse header, a Google
message-id & a Google server at the end of the path line?
Specifically, the following Google-specific headers:
---
Path:
be01!atl-c01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1141622230....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1141622235 821 127.0.0.1 (6 Mar 2006
05:17:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=60.48.164.216;
posting-account=Myncww0AAAD-a7AWLU4pgfPUlgiWAJEP
---
Those sure look to me like they came from a Google post.
>> Notice the complete lack of acknowledgement that there is even is such
>> a thing as Usenet, THAT THEIR USER IS SPAMMING, & their assumption
>> that my email is a whine about the content of someone's 'Google
>> Groups' post. Notice their clueless/arrogant wittering about 'Google
>> Groups' instead of Usenet, & the assumption that Usenet has no rules &
>> is merely a subset of 'Google Groups'. Now before anyone says
>> something like: "Oh, but they said they collected the information &
>> took it into account!", well maybe they actually do, but I've never
>> yet seen them stop a spam-run, or even nuke a spammer or other
>> net-abusers *free* account on their system. Hell, I've seen ongoing
>> spam-runs of identical posts from Google that have continued for
>> literally months, despite being reported by dozens of people, so if
>> they claim they actually *use* data from spam reports, they're simply
>> lying.
>
>I'm not convinced that they drop the data on the floor. I figure
>they use it to set their ad rates, to figure who to market their
>ads to and so on. Anyone spamming through them just might
>want to do paid ads as well. ;^)
That'd be a way more believable explanation than the one in their
IgnoreBot3000(tm) boilerplate. ;)
Frank Slootweg
Which part of "Usenet" in their "and other forms of Usenet abuse" did
you miss?
> THAT THEIR USER IS SPAMMING,
As you say, it's a boilerplate response, so they are obviously not
specifically responding to your specific complaint.
> & their assumption
> that my email is a whine about the content of someone's 'Google
> Groups' post.
IMO there no such assumption. (IMO) It's (somewhat) bad wording on
their side or/and bad reading on yours.
Note they say:
GG> While we understand how annoying off-topic posts can be, we aren't
GG> able to pursue most complaints we receive about them.
That's a new sentence. *You* 'connect' that to the rest, but if you
take the sentence on its own, it's a valid remark which is not
neccessarily related to the previous (spam and Usenet abuse) remarks.
> Notice their clueless/arrogant wittering about 'Google
> Groups' instead of Usenet, & the assumption that Usenet has no rules &
> is merely a subset of 'Google Groups'.
Thta's *you* *interpretation*, not *their* *writing*. For example
"postings sent to Google Groups" can be interpreted as it reads, i.e.
*any* postings sent to Google Groups, i.e. postings from Google Groups
users/posters, but also postings from external/Usenet users like you and
me. Bottom line: Your bias is clouding your reading.
> Now before anyone says
> something like: "Oh, but they said they collected the information &
> took it into account!", well maybe they actually do, but I've never
> yet seen them stop a spam-run, or even nuke a spammer
Agreed, they could and should do more about *real* spam, i.e. BI>20.
> or other
> net-abusers *free* account on their system.
Huh? What about FSS?
[more of the same deleted]
Howard Knight
: howar...@yaEXPUNGEhoo.com (Howard Knight) wrote:
:
: > About a year ago, getting fed up with all the Google spam myself,
: > I started collecting data on all the google spam in the adult
: > newsgroups (alt.sex.*, alt.personals.*, etc.). I quickly found
: > out that compared to the other spam out there, the Google spam
: > didn't amount to much. (Some individual spammers were pumping out
: > a magnitude more spam per day than all the google spam combined.)
:
: That seems like a sampling with a built in flaw. That is, how fine a
: line can you draw in those kinds of groups for what is spam such that
: Google's contribution is significant? It is not at all obvious to me,
: were I an ISP, that a commercial post for sex services to alt.sex is
: spam (and, yes, I have been around long enough to remember when alt.sex
: was an excellent discussion group).
When I say "spam", I mean substantively identical posted excessively.
It has nothing to do with the content. If you want to find lots of
"spam", I can't think of any better newsgroups to look in. But, you
are correct in that it doesn't represent the abuse that is coming
from Google as a whole. Believe me, though, there is a _log_ of
Google spam in those groups. Insignificant, however, compared to
spam coming from other NSPs.
: If you really wanted to make a case, you would have collected data
: about a random sample of groups, or simply collected all Google posts
: and examined them.
Given the incredible number of Google users, that would be a
monumental task. But, you are right. That would be the best way to
make the case. Unfortunately, I don't have the time. Nor, does it
seem, does anyone else. Even those people yelling for a Google UDP.
: > Sites don't get UDPed for moronic posts. Otherwise, AOL and WEBTV
: > would have been UDPed years ago.
:
: But have either been as unresponsive as Google has been to the outright
: abuse of their servers?
Back in the late 90's, AOL was in the UDP radar scope. They finally
did get their act together before that happened. And I can almost
guarantee that the abuse from AOL back then, was much worse, and their
lack of response comparable to Google's.
: Yeah, the morons are there, but what got me pissed at Google is that
: the spammers have remained active with seemingly no hope of end
: *despite* their own Gmail technology for spam filtering. It's that
: kind of disregard that makes me think a formal UDP is not a bad idea.
I think that Google should be wiped off of Usenet too. But, just
cause we think that, doesn't mean a UDP is justified. I, for one,
would not even think about enforcing a UDP against Goolge without
hard evidence to justify it. So far, no one has provided any.
: > I will agree with you there. Google leaves much to be desired when
: > it comes to acting on abuse complaints. Still, there are other NSPs
: > out there that are much more neglegent than Google.
:
: But they are not Google! Please name one of those others you continue
: to refer to.
Active-news.com, 100ProofNews.com, astraweb.com, newsguy.com (#1
source of phone sex spam for years), and the list goes on.
Richard Leslie's reports also show alot of sites that are regular
sources of major spam:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_uauthors=Richard+Leslie&scoring=d
: I expect I'll find their traffic does not clog the newsgroups I read
: half as much as I've seen Google allow.
I have no idea what newsgroups you read, but that is irrelevant.
: > I'm not the one asking for a UDP. The burden does not fall on me.
:
: I'm not asking for the UDP either, I merely said I wouldn't mind it.
: You still have yet to point to anything particularly useful coming out
: of Google's Usenet servers, and so I'll continue to be quite happy with
: my personal choice to kill googlegroups.com posts.
I'm not going to argue with your personal choice to killfile google...
Go for it!
Howard
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> [Standard Google IgnoreBot3000(tm) "Shut up & eat your spam, Peon"
> message]
>
> >> postings sent to Google Groups
>
> >The one word I note in this is "to". They say it was a posting
> >sent TO Google groups. As in the username on the post might
> >have been X...@gmail.com, but the point of origin according to
> >them was some site other than Google and they received it
> >over one of their feeds not from one of their own users.
>
> No, it was posted from Google, from a standard Google user account.
>
> >I take it they said this in error, right?
>
> No, they said it because that it is their standard boilerplate
> response to *any* spam or net-abuse report sent to the abuse@ address
> that Google puts in the headers of each post that originates from
> Google itself.
Ah. I've tried the abuse@ address and also the Report Abuse button
since I post through them. I've gotten both types of boilerplate
but haven't tracked which goes with which.
> It's worth mentioning that the Abuse address that Google puts in its
> Usenet posts is purely for the benefit of the Usenet side of the sewer
> pipe, because Google-Groups users who wish to complain about a post
> simply have to hit the 'report this' button that appears on each post
> when it's read via the Google-Groups UI on their web-browser.
But they only ever give one response to that channel. Gotcha.
Kadaitcha Man
who likes abusive velcro arse joining with mallards, and whose partner
is a muff-merchant with a damp haddock pasty, wrote in
<v46e02lr49jgsqu34...@4ax.com>:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 06:29:19 -0800, John Corliss
> <jcor...@fake.invalid> opined:
>
>> My reason is simple. Spammers know that they can post through Google
>> Groups and that Google will not respond to any usnet abuse complaints
>> against them. As a result, many groups are now being flooded with
>> spam that is very hard to stop.
>
> Yep, because it takes weeks to get Google to actually take a look at
> their own posting archive for their reported lusers, & grudgingly
> admit that maybe their TOS is being violated, & in the meantime, their
> luser has signed up for another dozen or two freebie email accounts &
> used them to get Google posting accounts.
> And of course Google claim their automated system prevents abuse, &
> refuse to look at the evidence that it doesn't.
> Unfortunately, Google has very cosy peering arrangements with several
> major commercial news providers, so they prefer to look the other way.
> All of this sucks, but there doesn't see to be anyone in a position to
> do anything about it & who actually cares.
> If you want to push for some action, you might try
> news.admin.net-abuse.policy, because this group is no longer read by
> any newsadmins. (It's moderated quite strictly, so read the FAQ before
> postig there.)
> Please feel free to drop me a line if you do decide to take it there,
> because I'd like to bring the subject up again myself.
=-9998 Message-ID "googlegroups.com"
--
Satisifed Customer: "Thank you, Kadaitcha Man. I appreciate it. It works just great!"
dave hillstrom
what about those of us using agent, hmmm? come on, smarty pants,
give!
and if you tell me to switch newsreaders, ill throw up on your shoes.
some day, at least.
--
dave hillstrom
flonker emeritus
(but not as emeritus as lorrill buyens. shes so emeritus, shes on her third set of hands.)
((gosh i was nice with that last one..))
. <-- sigzip
Kadaitcha Man
short-arm bandit who likes adventurous menage-a-moi with canaries, and
whose partner is a bit of mutton with an expansive money box, wrote in
<dul655$spb$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
> and if you tell me to switch newsreaders, ill throw up on your shoes.
> some day, at least.
Switch newsreaders.
dave hillstrom
<fuck-you...@kiss-my-big-black-ass.com> wrote:
oh, sure, make EVERYONE run Hamster. why not just poke my eyes out
while youre at it?
>> and if you tell me to switch newsreaders, ill throw up on your shoes.
>> some day, at least.
>
>Switch newsreaders.
<horkage>
someone, anyone, tell me where this goober lives...
Kadaitcha Man
twink who likes violent leg spreaders with worm lizards, and whose
partner is a good-time-girl with a ghastly warm slurpee, wrote in
<dul7em$spb$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
<poke> <poke>
>>> and if you tell me to switch newsreaders, ill throw up on your
>>> shoes. some day, at least.
>>
>> Switch newsreaders.
>
> <horkage>
Ew!
> someone, anyone, tell me where this goober lives...
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 05:42:15 +0545
Nepal.
Doc O'Leary
howar...@yaEXPUNGEhoo.com (Howard Knight) wrote:
> Doc O'Leary (drolear...@1q2006.subsume.com) wrote:
> :
> : But they are not Google! Please name one of those others you continue
> : to refer to.
>
> Active-news.com, 100ProofNews.com, astraweb.com, newsguy.com (#1
> source of phone sex spam for years), and the list goes on.
>
> Richard Leslie's reports also show alot of sites that are regular
> sources of major spam:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_uauthors=Richard+Leslie&scoring=d
>
> : I expect I'll find their traffic does not clog the newsgroups I read
> : half as much as I've seen Google allow.
>
> I have no idea what newsgroups you read, but that is irrelevant.
No, it is completely relevant. While I don't doubt the servers you list
are spammy, they don't seem to spam in off-topic groups. Yes, I suppose
it still sucks to get porn spam in a porn group, but that is a far cry
from porn spam in programming language group. That's the kind of thing
Google seems to be turning a blind eye to, and that is why I'd have no
problem with a UDP until they get their act together. What personally
got me killing googlegroups.com is a flood pyramid schemes that used
gmail.com addresses. Google has the ability to stop that kind of shit
before it even gets out the gate, and it is really telling that they
don't.
Frank Slootweg
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 05:42:15 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man" wrote:
>
> >dave hillstrom <dA...@MeOw.oRg>, wrote in
> ><dul655$spb$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
> >> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 03:32:40 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man" wrote:
> >>> =-9998 Message-ID "googlegroups.com"
> >>
> >> what about those of us using agent, hmmm? come on, smarty pants,
> >> give!
> >
> >http://www.tglsoft.de/
>
> oh, sure, make EVERYONE run Hamster. why not just poke my eyes out
> while youre at it?
Well, perhaps you should try it. You might event like it. And if
Hamster is too big, there's always Nfilter [1]
> >> and if you tell me to switch newsreaders, ill throw up on your shoes.
> >> some day, at least.
How could you "switch" something you don't have?
[deleted]
[1] <http://www.nfilter.org>
Frank Slootweg
[deleted]
> No, it is completely relevant. While I don't doubt the servers you list
> are spammy, they don't seem to spam in off-topic groups. Yes, I suppose
> it still sucks to get porn spam in a porn group, but that is a far cry
> from porn spam in programming language group.
As has been pointed out, spam *cannot* be off-topic (on on-topic)
because spam isn't about content, but about (too high) volume (i.e.
BI>20).
If you want to be taken seriously in this group, then don't say "spam"
when you mean something *else*, i.e. a posting which you/someone/
some_people/many_people/most_people don't *like*, and *specifically*
name that something else, i.e. off-topic posting, insult, commercial
posting, [E]MAK, etc., etc..
> That's the kind of thing
> Google seems to be turning a blind eye to, and that is why I'd have no
> problem with a UDP until they get their act together. What personally
> got me killing googlegroups.com is a flood pyramid schemes that used
> gmail.com addresses. Google has the ability to stop that kind of shit
> before it even gets out the gate, and it is really telling that they
> don't.
So as said before, present *real* evidence of *real* net-abuse (i.e.
abuse *of* the net, or at minimum many severe cases of abuse *on* the
net), and do so in news.admin.net-abuse. Only *then* the people that
*matter* (i.e. Google Groups' peers) might listen.
John Corliss
> John Corliss <jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote in
> news:120gvjv...@corp.supernews.com:
No. Not really.
--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc (who uses sock
puppets), for instance. No adware, cdware, commercial software,
crippleware, demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware,
time-limited software, trialware, viruses or warez for me, please.
Seth Breidbart
>> No, it is completely relevant. While I don't doubt the servers you list
>> are spammy, they don't seem to spam in off-topic groups. Yes, I suppose
>> it still sucks to get porn spam in a porn group, but that is a far cry
>> from porn spam in programming language group.
>
> As has been pointed out, spam *cannot* be off-topic (on on-topic)
>because spam isn't about content, but about (too high) volume (i.e.
>BI>20).
Therefore spam can be either on-topic or off-topic, but that doesn't
matter, because it's spam.
Your message was clearly on topic here on nanau. If you'd posted it
50 times to different newsgroups, it would clearly be off-topic on
sci.math and rec.music.gdead. But it would be spam in all of them.
Seth
Frank Slootweg
> In article <440ef6c6$0$80202$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >Doc O'Leary <drolear...@1q2006.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> >> No, it is completely relevant. While I don't doubt the servers you list
> >> are spammy, they don't seem to spam in off-topic groups. Yes, I suppose
> >> it still sucks to get porn spam in a porn group, but that is a far cry
> >> from porn spam in programming language group.
> >
> > As has been pointed out, spam *cannot* be off-topic (on on-topic)
> >because spam isn't about content, but about (too high) volume (i.e.
> >BI>20).
>
> Therefore spam can be either on-topic or off-topic, but that doesn't
> matter, because it's spam.
That's what I meant, the off/on topicness is irrelevant. Saying
"on-topic spam" is like saying "a polite thief". It's not relevant
whether a thief is polite or not. Likewise of "off-topic spam".
> Your message was clearly on topic here on nanau. If you'd posted it
> 50 times to different newsgroups, it would clearly be off-topic on
> sci.math and rec.music.gdead. But it would be spam in all of them.
Rest assured Seth, that *I* know very well what spam is and isn't.
After all, I said "BI", didn't I? And not only did I say it, I 'even'
know what it means! :-)