The Great Downsizing of news.admin.*
Big-8 Management Board
unmoderated newsgroups all across the BIG8. Because of the magnitude
of the group list the proposal is not crossposted to target groups.
Instead pointers are posted to a few selected groups.
The full text of the proposal is available here:
http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Nan:2011-02-01-rfd-great-downsizing
http://groups.google.com/group/news.announce.newgroups/msg/091abc69fd45436b
Affected groups that might interest you:
news.admin.nocem NoCeM protocol policy issues and information.
If you have any objections, please make them heard in moderated group
news.groups.proposals. The "Followup-To:" header is set on this message,
so simply replying to this post should do the right thing.
--
News Guy
> Affected groups that might interest you:
>
> news.admin.nocem
> NoCeM protocol policy issues and information.
>
It's too bad that news.admin.nocem isin't / wasn't used.
I guess it's a function of how much feedback or input that usenet users
can have to inform or influence the maintainers of nocem to add various
vandals and miscreants to it's filtering mechanism or database.
For example, I would ask why the Tony Lance "Big Bertha Thing what-ever"
posts are not filtered out as the sporge that they are by nocem or
cleanfeed.
Adam H. Kerman
I'd ask why the vast majority of your articles don't trip spam thresholds,
given that you never listen to answers given, you reject correct answers
given, and you then re-ask the same question again in repeated articles.
If you did ask that in the NoCeM group, it would be off topic, you
clueless git, because the group was never for reporting sighted spam.
Furthermore, maintaining NoCeM has nothing to do with issuing NoCeM lists.
If you weren't such a moron, you'd have realized by now, after 20 years,
that if you don't like the lists issued, you could issue your own or
run a list personalized for yourself.
News Guy
> > It's too bad that news.admin.nocem isin't / wasn't used.
> > For example, I would ask why the Tony Lance "Big Bertha Thing
> > what-ever" posts are not filtered out as the sporge that they
> > are by nocem or cleanfeed.
>
> I'd ask why the vast majority of your articles don't trip spam
> thresholds,
Same for your foul, putrid replies.
> If you did ask that in the NoCeM group, it would be off topic,
Well that's the problem then. The group is going to be killed because
it's topic or charter or reason for being wasn't properly thought out or
conceived.
If it was used as a forum for posting abuse sightings then it would have
been more relavent to usenet. Instead it's being killed because it's
claimed purpose (where-ever that's written up) has been deemed as not
relavent by the big-8 controllers, as evidenced by it's lack of use.
> you clueless git
You arrogant asswipe.
> because the group was never for reporting sighted spam.
And that is the reason for it's pending demise.
Not even a periodic FAQ being posted in that group.
> Furthermore, maintaining NoCeM has nothing to do with issuing
> NoCeM lists.
Don't split hairs. What goes on a NoCem list is all part of working
with, maintaining or administrating NoCem.
> If you weren't such a moron
If you weren't such a dink
> you'd have realized by now, after 20 years, that if you don't
> like the lists issued,
The issued lists are supposed to be effective at filtering out spam for
the benefit of all users.
The Bertha sporge postings should have been recognized long ago as being
worthy of addition to NoCem.
> you could issue your own or run a list personalized for yourself.
Why should I?
Adam H. Kerman
Our Dear Imbecile does get off on off topic crossposts.
News Guy <Ne...@Guy.com> wrote:
>The dink "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>It's too bad that news.admin.nocem isin't / wasn't used.
>>>For example, I would ask why the Tony Lance "Big Bertha Thing
>>>what-ever" posts are not filtered out as the sporge that they
>>>are by nocem or cleanfeed.
>>I'd ask why the vast majority of your articles don't trip spam
>>thresholds,
>Same for your foul, putrid replies.
>>If you did ask that in the NoCeM group, it would be off topic,
>Well that's the problem then.
No. The problem is that you are a moron and keep bitching that you would
have used the NoCeM group inappropriately for spam sighting, which was
never it's purpose, since you refuse to acknowledge the huge difference
between the news.abuse.* groups and the news.admin.* groups. If spam
sighting reports were appropriate for news.* groups outside news.abuse.*,
then spam sighting discussion would overwhelm any other discussion.
You understand this but you are bitching anyway.
>The group is going to be killed because it's topic or charter or reason
>for being wasn't properly thought out or conceived.
The NoCeM group's charter is just fine. It just wasn't appropriate to use
Usenet for these discussions.
You're alive today because your parents improperly conceived you, so
you're one to criticize the concept.
>If it was used as a forum for posting abuse sightings then it would have
>been more relavent to usenet. Instead it's being killed because it's
>claimed purpose (where-ever that's written up) has been deemed as not
>relavent by the big-8 controllers, as evidenced by it's lack of use.
You can pretty much assume that if you state and restate and restate and
restate your erroneous opinion, no one else on Usenet will agree with you.
The more you restate your clueless opinion, then those few who might have
agreed with you, not knowing your reputation, are very likely to be
persuaded otherwise.
>>you clueless git
>You arrogant asswipe.
>>because the group was never for reporting sighted spam.
>And that is the reason for it's pending demise.
>Not even a periodic FAQ being posted in that group.
Why the fuck do you care? You wouldn't have read it. Everything you've
ever questioned about Usenet is explained in FAQs or by knowledgable
users that you refuse to learn from.
>>Furthermore, maintaining NoCeM has nothing to do with issuing
>>NoCeM lists.
>Don't split hairs.
It's not hair splitting, ding dong. You do not, and never will, understand
the purpose of NoCeM. It's designed so ANYONE could issue a list. The
creator of NoCeM did not intend to be the official source of lists that
any Usenet site or user would use himself.
I could repeat this another 57 times, but it would never penetrate the
massive clue wall you surround yourself with.
>What goes on a NoCem list is all part of working with, maintaining
>or administrating NoCem.
Wrong again, dude.
NoCeM is nothing like Cleanfeed, which you attempted to link it to.
>>If you weren't such a moron
>If you weren't such a dink
>>you'd have realized by now, after 20 years, that if you don't
>>like the lists issued,
>The issued lists are supposed to be effective at filtering out spam for
>the benefit of all users.
>The Bertha sporge postings should have been recognized long ago as being
>worthy of addition to NoCem.
Issue your own list as you don't like existing lists.
>>you could issue your own or run a list personalized for yourself.
>Why should I?
Because you'd be less of a hypocrite and we all wouldn't have to hear
your constant whining that others should do things you are unwilling
to do yourself?
News Guy
alt.current.events.net-abuse.Adam-H-Kerman to be up and running?
Or perhaps alt.comp.virus.adam.h.kerman?
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENBRIT/2001-09/1000592019
You wouldn't happen to be related to Rod Speed - would you?
Adam H. Kerman
>Speaking of newsgroups, can we expect
>alt.current.events.net-abuse.Adam-H-Kerman to be up and running?
Capital letters aren't allowed, douchebag.
>Or perhaps alt.comp.virus.adam.h.kerman?
Pretty lame to use dots instead of hyphens, buffalo dung.
Little is lamer than threatening to start revenge groups.