In article <uq9eo5$8ng0$
1...@dont-email.me>, immibis <
ne...@immibis.com> wrote:
>On 7/02/24 22:36, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article <
aaa0cc6b4cd248a5...@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 14:07:09 +0100, Andrew <
Do...@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>>>> Spam Report wrote:
>>>>> group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
>>>>
>>>> as is comp.lang.cobol, 36 so far today.
>>>
>>> there's no going back . . . once google falls off the usenet radar, other
>>> notoriously-spammy servers will stick out like a sore thumb, particularly
>>> those that appear to function as troll farm storefronts . . . if almighty
>>> google is saving face, those less invincible may not afford such luxuries
>>
>> Yes, but dumping traffic from them will be much less problematic than a
>> UDP on google.
>
>If, as is often cited, approximately 0 useful traffic comes from Google,
>then what is problematic about a UDP on it?
It's not 0. It's very low, but it's not 0. It's large enough in some
groups that there were worries about it. In technical groups it is
pretty much 0, though. But at this point it is academic.