On 1/4/24 02:34, David Griffith wrote:
> My point is that at least lned is allowing people to spam Usenet.
Are they /allowing/ spam? Do you have proof that they are both aware of
it and allowing it? My bet is that they are ignorant of it or focusing
efforts on other larger problems.
> 1) Usenet servers need to get very aggressive about policing for spam
> and shun servers that refuse to get rid of their problem users.
Each server administer has the freedom to do whatever filtering they want.
There are multiple tools that they can use to filter. Not all tools
catch all spam. Not all spam can be detected easily.
> 2) Come up with a means to detect and thwart spam. For instance, posts
> could be analyzed for similarity to other posts. Servers would share
> their results. Posts determined to be spam could then be deleted.
I believe that has existed for many years.
> 3) Come up with a means to add or remove moderation on a group as
> well as reassigning moderation duties.
Moderation does exist in Usenet. It's not fool proof. There are ways
around it.
> 4) Put a brake on users who post more than X articles per unit of time.
I believe this capability has existed for quite a while.
> 5) Come up with a means for users to identify and deal with censorious
> or otherwise abusing news admins. Not sure what thi
All most Usenet consumers can see is the purported news server that the
message originated from.
Only the news masters of said originating / posting server has any
visibility into who the actual poster was, if even then.
> 6) Put new users on a probation to ensure that they are real people
> and not likely to cause problems.
Many news servers have done exactly that.
> 7) Produce new software for moderators.
I'm not aware of problems with existing software for moderators.
Nothing you've said even hints at needing to alter the NNTP protocol.
I believe everything you have suggested already exists in one form or
another.