Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content

[Wally J]

Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>

Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content
from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data
will still be supported as it is done today.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>

The bad news is that this search engine "may" stop working soon.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.software.nntp>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
etc.

Is it something we said?
*Please complain to Google about their spamming of Usenet*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/hO4JNke1bNc>
--
Usenet is a team of intelligent old men working together for common good.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

[ Crossposting to news.admin.peering , it seems relevant enough. ]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)
Bring Back Jason Todd <bb...@bbjt.com> wrote:
> "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet
> content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet
> peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be
> supported as it is done today.

[...]

> https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet

Well , we knew it was coming. I have mixed feelings about it. I discovered
usenet through googlegroups and for my first few years on usenet I was
posting and reading through googlegroups so I'm not going to express
unreserved joy. It's also a concern whether usenet will be able to get new
(and young) users. But with the way things have been , it's for the best.
Many newsservers which have become unusable (on some groups) because they
don't filter any of the spam , will become usable again.

Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a
warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do something to warn
them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist legitimate users
who post through googlegroups.

--
"A great disturbance in the internets. It was like a million hentai lovers
voices crying out in unison, then suddenly silenced."
"automatedresponse"
www.reddit.com/r/promos/comments/6mtzb/time_warner_cable_to_block_all_usenet_access

[Richard Harnden]

On 15/12/2023 00:48, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> [ Crossposting to news.admin.peering , it seems relevant enough. ]
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)
> Bring Back Jason Todd <bb...@bbjt.com> wrote:
>> "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet
>> content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet
>> peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be
>> supported as it is done today.
>
> [...]
>
>> https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
>
> Well , we knew it was coming. I have mixed feelings about it. I discovered
> usenet through googlegroups and for my first few years on usenet I was
> posting and reading through googlegroups so I'm not going to express
> unreserved joy. It's also a concern whether usenet will be able to get new
> (and young) users. But with the way things have been , it's for the best.
> Many newsservers which have become unusable (on some groups) because they
> don't filter any of the spam , will become usable again.
>
> Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a
> warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do something to warn
> them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist legitimate users
> who post through googlegroups.
>

Yes, there is a blue banner at the top saying:

"
Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
"

And a link to their excuse.

[The Doctor]

In article <ulg14i$3o4hi$1...@paganini.bofh.team>,

Good news for anti-abusers!

>--
>Usenet is a team of intelligent old men working together for common good.

--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nk.ca Ici doc...@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

[The Doctor]

In article <YAYuIEZa...@bongo-ra.co>,

Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[ Crossposting to news.admin.peering , it seems relevant enough. ]
>
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)
>Bring Back Jason Todd <bb...@bbjt.com> wrote:
>> "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support
>new Usenet
>> content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content
>from Usenet
>> peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will
>still be
>> supported as it is done today.
>
>[...]
>
>> https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
>
>Well , we knew it was coming. I have mixed feelings about it. I discovered
>usenet through googlegroups and for my first few years on usenet I was
>posting and reading through googlegroups so I'm not going to express
>unreserved joy. It's also a concern whether usenet will be able to get new
>(and young) users. But with the way things have been , it's for the best.
>Many newsservers which have become unusable (on some groups) because they
>don't filter any of the spam , will become usable again.
>
>Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a
>warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do something to warn
>them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist legitimate users
>who post through googlegroups.
>

This is what you get when you cannot control spamtrollers!

>--
>"A great disturbance in the internets. It was like a million hentai lovers
>voices crying out in unison, then suddenly silenced."
> "automatedresponse"
>
>www.reddit.com/r/promos/comments/6mtzb/time_warner_cable_to_block_all_usenet_access

[The Doctor]

In article <ulga2r$1k2ng$1...@dont-email.me>,

They are covering their incompetence!

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 01:27:55 +0000
Richard Harnden <richard...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> On 15/12/2023 00:48, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

[...]

> > Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a
> > warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do something to warn
> > them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist legitimate users
> > who post through googlegroups.
> >
>
> Yes, there is a blue banner at the top saying:
>
> "
> Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
> Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
> content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
> historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
> "
>
> And a link to their excuse.

At least they're doing something right.

[The Doctor]

In article <S19m08fd...@bongo-ra.co>,

And stick with it!

[Grant Taylor]

On 12/14/23 19:33, The Doctor wrote:
> They are covering their incompetence!

No, I've worked with them.

They aren't incompetent.

They are doing what they were told to do by management.

This is a business decision, not related to people's capability.



--
Grant. . . .

[Grant Taylor]

On 12/14/23 19:31, The Doctor wrote:
> This is what you get when you cannot control spamtrollers!

I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
them to.

I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in
preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
did recently.

Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement
wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
the spam was no longer detected and prevented.

An Oops, followed by "let's see if anyone notices" and "oh ... they
noticed, shut it off" seems very likely.

[Julieta Shem]

Wally J <walte...@invalid.nospam> writes:

> Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>
>
> Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
> Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content
> from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data
> will still be supported as it is done today.
> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
>
> The bad news is that this search engine "may" stop working soon.
> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.software.nntp>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
> etc.

We got to provide solutions our ourselves. This is the USENET spirit
--- by the people for the people (with a sufficient sense of capacity).

> Is it something we said?
> *Please complain to Google about their spamming of Usenet*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/hO4JNke1bNc>

Lol!

[Tom Furie]

Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> writes:

>> The bad news is that this search engine "may" stop working soon.
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.software.nntp>
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
>> etc.
>
> We got to provide solutions our ourselves. This is the USENET spirit
> --- by the people for the people (with a sufficient sense of capacity).

There might be enough fragmentary archives around to form a "mostly
complete" set, but it'll take a lot of time and effort to unearth them
and coordinate their collation. For some reason I don't get the feeling
that Google will have much interest in releasing theirs.

[Wally J]

Tom Furie <t...@furie.org.uk> wrote

> There might be enough fragmentary archives around to form a "mostly
> complete" set, but it'll take a lot of time and effort to unearth them
> and coordinate their collation. For some reason I don't get the feeling
> that Google will have much interest in releasing theirs.

There is the narkive which, if it actually worked, would fit the bill.
a. It has to be web searchable w/o need for a newsreader or account
b. Results must be readable by your mother or grandmother using a browser
c. It has to result in a URI to the thread and to the article

The "only" one I know of (which sucks, by the way), is this one:
<https://news.software.nntp.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>

But, I repeat. It sucks. It's unreliable. Search doesn't work.
Last I had checked anyway...

Is there another current Usenet archive that meets the requirements?
--
The spirit of Usenet can live on if we resolve this new challenge.

[Wally J]

Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
> them to.
>
> I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in
> preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
> did recently.
>
> Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement
> wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
> the spam was no longer detected and prevented.
>
> An Oops, followed by "let's see if anyone notices" and "oh ... they
> noticed, shut it off" seems very likely.

Agree on everything stated above.
a. Management nixed it
b. Their may have been a recent event (an expired contract perhaps)
c. Spam found a way through the hole it left as a result
d. When the shit hit the fan, they decided to give up on dejagoogle

Their excuse is completely bogus though, but at least they didn't pull the
pedophile child-porn crap that AT&T used as their excuse years ago when
they pulled the plug on Usenet (well before the sex offender Baby Cuomo's
political shenanigans became common public knowledge).

Anyway, the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?, some?)
newsgroups is the narkive - but it really sucks in my humble opinion.

<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com

I would like to ask others to check it out as I've never been successful
with it; but maybe it's just the privacy stuff I have on my browsers?
--
Usenet is a team effort so that we can effectively help others.

[Grant Taylor]

On 12/14/23 21:29, Wally J wrote:
> Their excuse is completely bogus though,

No, it's not. It's not an excuse either. It's a reason. The reason
can be shortened to the last word.

They just fail to tell the whole truth -- that the vast majority of the
spam was originating from them -- and nothing but the truth -- the rest
of the fluff that they padded their statement with.

The fact that they are not discontinuing Google Groups supports that
people still use (news)groups to communicate. So any comment about
newer social media is a lie.

But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
"spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.

This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
times before.

[The Doctor]

In article <ulgbgf$9mj$2...@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,

Interesting "decision".

>
>
>--
>Grant. . . .

[The Doctor]

In article <ulgbll$9mj$3...@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,

CERtainly does sound competent.

>
>
>--
>Grant. . . .

[The Doctor]

Google Plus was much better ran!

[Marco Moock]

Am 14.12.2023 um 18:55:14 Uhr schrieb Wally J:

> Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>
>
> Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
> Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
> content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
> historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
>
> The bad news is that this search engine "may" stop working soon.

Didn't it stop working long time ago?

> Is it something we said?

No, but Google doesn't care about what people say.
Be happy that they decided to keep the old content instead of
completely vanishing it and destroying millions of messages with
knowledge from the past.

[Marco Moock]

Am 14.12.2023 um 22:56:56 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:

> We got to provide solutions our ourselves.

Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?

[Marco Moock]

Am 14.12.2023 um 23:19:59 Uhr schrieb Wally J:

> There is the narkive which, if it actually worked, would fit the bill.

Although that doesn't include stuff from the 80s/90s.

[Marco Moock]

Am 14.12.2023 um 23:29:06 Uhr schrieb Wally J:

> Anyway, the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?,
> some?) newsgroups is the narkive - but it really sucks in my humble
> opinion.
>
> <https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
> <https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com
>
> I would like to ask others to check it out as I've never been
> successful with it; but maybe it's just the privacy stuff I have on
> my browsers?

It works, posting is intentionally disabled.
I can read groups properly, some are full of Google spam.

Sadly, there is no list of all groups hosted there.

[Marco Moock]

Am 15.12.2023 um 21:54:27 Uhr schrieb noel:

> If you want web interfaces go run a forum.
>
> dnews has a web interface - I shut it down in the late 90's because
> the more who found it abused it.

There is no need to have a posting opportunity there.
But those web interfaces make it possible to find content via regular
search engines.
Or do you know a Usenet search engine that can query NNTP servers?

[Marc Haber]

doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>They are covering their incompetence!

And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.

Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

[Julieta Shem]

Wally J <walte...@invalid.nospam> writes:

> Tom Furie <t...@furie.org.uk> wrote
>
>> There might be enough fragmentary archives around to form a "mostly
>> complete" set, but it'll take a lot of time and effort to unearth them
>> and coordinate their collation. For some reason I don't get the feeling
>> that Google will have much interest in releasing theirs.
>
> There is the narkive which, if it actually worked, would fit the bill.
> a. It has to be web searchable w/o need for a newsreader or account
> b. Results must be readable by your mother or grandmother using a browser
> c. It has to result in a URI to the thread and to the article
>
> The "only" one I know of (which sucks, by the way), is this one:
> <https://news.software.nntp.narkive.com>
> <https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
> <https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>
>
> But, I repeat. It sucks. It's unreliable. Search doesn't work.
> Last I had checked anyway...

The address

https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com

loads with updated threads, but trying to read messages results in HTTP
505, meaning we have no idea what we're doing.

[...]

[Marco Moock]

Am 15.12.2023 um 22:20:23 Uhr schrieb noel:

> Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it
> survived just fine back in the say before search engines

Because there is a need to find information that has been posted months
or years ago.

That means that a search engine needs to be able to index it.
I don't know any search engine that queries NNTP.

[Julieta Shem]

noel <delet...@invalid.lan> writes:

[...]

> Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
> just fine back in the say before search engines

That's an interesting point. It is perhaps a good idea not to display
anything on the web precisely so that we do not attract people with an
interest in seeing information displayed to a world such as the web.
For instance, if we display something on the web, the system might be of
interest to spammers.

Maybe we should keep the USENET as hidden from the world as possible.
This closedness might actually work as an invitation. The value of the
USENET is the value of the people in it. If we only invite technical
people, for instance, the USENET becomes attractive to whose interested
in such properties.

[Sn!pe]

That URL works just fine for me, Julieta.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator
<snip...@gmail.com>
Google to end Usenet gateway - My pet rock Gordon just cheered.
<https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538>

[Marco Moock]

Am 15.12.2023 um 10:40:48 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:

> loads with updated threads, but trying to read messages results in
> HTTP 505, meaning we have no idea what we're doing.

Works for me:
https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com/3iYQhKhL/effective-february-15-2024-google-groups-will-no-longer-support-new-usenet-content

If it doesn't for you, contact the operator:

dav...@narkive.com

[Julieta Shem]

Marco Moock <mm+use...@dorfdsl.de> writes:

> Am 15.12.2023 um 10:40:48 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:
>
>> loads with updated threads, but trying to read messages results in
>> HTTP 505, meaning we have no idea what we're doing.
>
> Works for me:
> https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com/3iYQhKhL/effective-february-15-2024-google-groups-will-no-longer-support-new-usenet-content

I found a thread that opens, but the first ones displaying today do not.

For instance, the address

https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com/XQDMkfhu/please-complain-to-google-about-their-spamming-of-usenet

loads fine. But

https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com/utLAtZzn/effective-february-15-2024-google-groups-will-no-longer-support-new-usenet-content#

does not. (The one you mentioned doesn't either.)

[Richard Kettlewell]

Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> writes:

> noel <delet...@invalid.lan> writes:
>> Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
>> just fine back in the say before search engines
>
> That's an interesting point. It is perhaps a good idea not to display
> anything on the web precisely so that we do not attract people with an
> interest in seeing information displayed to a world such as the web.
> For instance, if we display something on the web, the system might be
> of interest to spammers.

Usenet had spam before it had a web presence. Spam will appear anywhere
that has an audience and lacks sufficient controls to prevent it.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Grant Taylor]

On 12/15/23 08:04, Julieta Shem wrote:
> Maybe we should keep the USENET as hidden from the world as possible.

No. That is antithetical to the intentions of Usenet.

[candycanearter07]

On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> They are covering their incompetence!
>
> And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
> ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
> while being on their own way out.
>
> Greetings
> Marc

I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away
from pursuing Usenet.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[The Doctor]

In article <ulh0r3$1qodo$2...@dont-email.me>,

Google neds to pay $1 000 000 000 000 000 to every active
newserver on the planet for thier sheer incompetence!

[The Doctor]

In article <ulh12o$1qodo$3...@dont-email.me>,

URL?

[The Doctor]

In article <ulh14h$1qodo$4...@dont-email.me>,

So can Google give the archive over?

[The Doctor]

In article <657c3e73$1...@news.ausics.net>, noel <delet...@invalid.lan> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:00:23 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
>

>If you want web interfaces go run a forum.
>
>dnews has a web interface - I shut it down in the late 90's because the
>more who found it abused it.

Now username/password protection?

[The Doctor]

In article <657c4487$1...@news.ausics.net>, noel <delet...@invalid.lan> wrote:

>Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
>just fine back in the say before search engines

Hear! Hear!!

[The Doctor]

In article <ulhhca$kud4$1...@news1.tnib.de>,

Marc Haber <mh+usene...@zugschl.us> wrote:
>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>They are covering their incompetence!
>
>And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
>ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
>while being on their own way out.
>

So shutting spammers down might not be a google priority.

>Greetings
>Marc
>--
>-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
>Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
>Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " |
>Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

[The Doctor]

In article <ulhl1v$1tiqu$1...@dont-email.me>,

WEll what about pre-GG web interfaces to USenet?

[The Doctor]

What about non-tech hobbyists?

[candycanearter07]

On 12/15/23 10:02, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <ulhhca$kud4$1...@news1.tnib.de>,
> Marc Haber <mh+usene...@zugschl.us> wrote:
>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>> They are covering their incompetence!
>>
>> And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
>> ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
>> while being on their own way out.
>>
>
> So shutting spammers down might not be a google priority.

Why would you think Google cares?

[The Doctor]

In article <wwvzfyb...@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>,

And now I have freeaks signing up thinking they have an aoutsystem.

>--
>https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[The Doctor]

In article <ulhs7p$1uv5b$5...@dont-email.me>,

candycanearter07 <n...@thanks.net> wrote:
>On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:
>> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>> They are covering their incompetence!
>>
>> And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
>> ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
>> while being on their own way out.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Marc
>
>I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away
>from pursuing Usenet.

WEll less automation and more verification helps.

>--
>user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>

[The Doctor]

In article <ulhtil$1uv5b$9...@dont-email.me>,

Hence incompetence.

>--
>user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>

[Ray Banana]

Thus spake candycanearter07 <n...@thanks.net>

> I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people
> away from pursuing Usenet.

Eternal-September's registration page says otherwise.

--
Пу́тін — хуйло́
http://www.eternal-september.org

[Ray Banana]

Thus spake doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor)

>>Why would you think Google cares?
> Hence incompetence.

Google's Razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be
adequately explained by malice.

[The Doctor]

In article <8my1dvz...@raybanana.net>,

Ray Banana <ray...@raybanana.net> wrote:
>Thus spake doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor)
>
>>>Why would you think Google cares?
>> Hence incompetence.
>
>Google's Razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be
>adequately explained by malice.
>

Good point!

>
>--
>Пу́тін — хуйло́
>http://www.eternal-september.org

[DV]

Ray Banana wrote:

> Eternal-September's registration page says otherwise.

Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as it
appears in your signature. It's OK in https though:

<https://www.eternal-september.org>

--
Denis

Serveurs de news et passerelles web : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org>
Lecteurs de news : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org/lecteurs-de-news.html>

[Adam H. Kerman]

I've cut the crosspost.

Marco Moock <mm+use...@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 14.12.2023 um 18:55:14 Uhr schrieb Wally J:

>>Bad news for people who search before they post to Usenet:
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/tgQHDyjK/dejagoogle01.jpg>

>>Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
>>Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
>>content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of
>>historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>

>>The bad news is that this search engine "may" stop working soon.

>Didn't it stop working long time ago?

At least a decade and a half ago, Google stopped maintaining the
indexes. Without indexing, searching is amazingly difficult.

Yeah. What is there to save the way Google Groups presented Usenet?

>>. . .

[Adam H. Kerman]

candycanearter07 <n...@thanks.net> wrote:
>On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:

>>And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
>>ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
>>while being on their own way out.

>I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away
>from pursuing Usenet.

Somehow Usenet will survive without the people who refuse to try Usenet
due to believing Google's lies.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ray Banana <ray...@raybanana.net> wrote:
>Thus spake doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor)

>>>Why would you think Google cares?

>>Hence incompetence.

>Google's Razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be
>adequately explained by malice.

Hahahahahahahaha

[Marco Moock]

Am 15.12.2023 um 11:29:37 Uhr schrieb Julieta Shem:

> But
>
> https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com/utLAtZzn/effective-february-15-2024-google-groups-will-no-longer-support-new-usenet-content#
>
> does not. (The one you mentioned doesn't either.)

Works for me after solving the captcha.

[Marco Moock]

Am 15.12.2023 um 16:00:08 Uhr schrieb The Doctor:

> In article <ulh14h$1qodo$4...@dont-email.me>,
> Marco Moock <mm+use...@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> >Am 14.12.2023 um 23:19:59 Uhr schrieb Wally J:
> >
> >> There is the narkive which, if it actually worked, would fit the
> >> bill.
> >
> >Although that doesn't include stuff from the 80s/90s.
> >
>
> So can Google give the archive over?

I don't think they will do that.
I also don't know if peers maybe can access it via NNTP to suck all
the articles.

[Marco Moock]

Am 15.12.2023 um 17:47:10 Uhr schrieb DV:

> Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as
> it appears in your signature. It's OK in https though:

Works for me.

[Marco Moock]

Am 15.12.2023 um 18:36:27 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> What is there to save the way Google Groups presented Usenet?

Web Gateways exist and the content can be indexed by normal search
engines.

[Andy Burns]

The Doctor wrote:

> Marco Moock wrote:
>
>> Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?
>
> URL?

<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

[Adam H. Kerman]

A News article is structured. Information from specific headers should
be indexed and tagged. Using a typical search engine, if I'm looking for
a specific author, I'm more likely than not to get a hit on a followup
article quoting the author and not a Usenet article written by that
author.

Any search engine can index a library catalog card database but failing
to understand MARC21 format won't provide a helpful result.

[DV]

Marco Moock a écrit ceci :

> Works for me.

It works if I ask my browser to favor the secure connection (https), but
in this case any http URL will result in an error message.

In my opinion, when an https connection is available, it is better to
add the 's' in the link.

[Marco Moock]

Am 15.12.2023 um 20:09:45 Uhr schrieb DV:

> Marco Moock a écrit ceci :
>
> > Works for me.
>
> It works if I ask my browser to favor the secure connection (https),
> but in this case any http URL will result in an error message.

It works for me with http and https. I use Pale Moon.

[Adam H. Kerman]

DV <d...@yakakwatik.invalid> wrote:
>Ray Banana wrote:

>>Eternal-September's registration page says otherwise.

>Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as it
>appears in your signature. It's OK in https though:

><https://www.eternal-september.org>

Like Marco, I confirm that I can reach http://www.eternal-september.org/
which does not redirect to https://www.eternal-september.org/

[DV]

Marco Moock a écrit ceci :

>> It works if I ask my browser to favor the secure connection (https),
>> but in this case any http URL will result in an error message.
>
> It works for me with http and https. I use Pale Moon.

The problem occurs in Vivaldi, and probably in other Chrome-based
browsers.

[Grant Taylor]

On 12/15/23 10:11, The Doctor wrote:
> Hence incompetence.

Lack of caring and incompetence are two very different things.



--
Grant. . . .

[Adam H. Kerman]

DV <d...@yakakwatik.invalid> wrote:
>Marco Moock a écrit ceci :

>>>It works if I ask my browser to favor the secure connection (https),
>>>but in this case any http URL will result in an error message.

>>It works for me with http and https. I use Pale Moon.

>The problem occurs in Vivaldi, and probably in other Chrome-based
>browsers.

What, by default, the browser refuses to load http? That's an incredibly
stupid client.

[Grant Taylor]

On 15/12/23 16:00 The Doctor:

> So can Google give the archive over?

They probably could if they were so inclined.

But I wouldn't hold my breath that they will.

Or if they did, it would probably only be the archive that they received
from DeJa News and nothing since then.

On 12/15/23 13:49, Marco Moock wrote:
> I don't think they will do that.

Agreed.

> I also don't know if peers maybe can access it via NNTP to suck all
> the articles.

Almost certainly not.

This is where the vagaries and technicalities of NNTP vs NNRP come into
play.

NNTP is server to server feeding articles.

NNRP is client to server fetching and posting articles.

Often the protocols are mutually exclusive, partially out of security
(clients can't feed) and partially out of daemon simplicity (why have
NNRP stack in a pure NNTP server).

What's more is that in my experience, the ability to be a peer and use
NNTP to feed articles is often controlled by IP. As such, any
connections from said IP is automatically doesn't have access to NNRP,
and vice versa.

[Grant Taylor]

On 12/15/23 14:34, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> What, by default, the browser refuses to load http? That's an
> incredibly stupid client.

No ... it's a byproduct of evolving security on the web for the last
10-15 years.

It used to be assumed that unencrypted HTTP was the default and
encrypted HTTPS was the exception. We're now probably two thirds the
way along the migration to where encrypted HTTPS is assumed the default
and unencrypted HTTP is the exception.

Some browsers have chosen to make it so that they won't try unencrypted
HTTP without explicitly telling it to like many browsers years ago
wouldn't try encrypted HTTPS without explicitly telling them to.

It's an ongoing change.

[Andy Burns]

Marco Moock wrote:

> schrieb Wally J:
>
>> the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?,
>> some?) newsgroups is the narkive
>
> Sadly, there is no list of all groups hosted there.

Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

For me www.eternal-september.org resolves to
135.181.20.170 and 2a01:4f9:4b:44c2::2 .For the former wget says
"failed: Connection refused" .I can't connect to the latter either but I
don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
related to eternal-september .So possibly the reason that some people
can connect and some cannot is that the people who cannot have problems
handling IPv6 addresses in general.

[DV]

Adam H. Kerman a écrit ceci :

> What, by default, the browser refuses to load http? That's an incredibly
> stupid client.

I have no problem with most http URLs, but the Eternal-September one
only opens with https.

[Marco Moock]

Am 15.12.2023 um 14:42:27 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor:

> It used to be assumed that unencrypted HTTP was the default and
> encrypted HTTPS was the exception. We're now probably two thirds the
> way along the migration to where encrypted HTTPS is assumed the
> default and unencrypted HTTP is the exception.

Much more.
Some years ago Google started to rank down sites that only had http, so
almost all webmasters decided to enable https.

Every common browser now displays warning messages when accessing an
http site.

[Marco Moock]

Am 15.12.2023 um 20:45:06 Uhr schrieb Spiros Bousbouras:

> I don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
> related to eternal-september.

Then check if your system has an IPv6 address (not fe80 or fd00, those
can't be used for internet communication).

[Marco Moock]

Davide Cavion <dav...@narkive.com>

[Adam H. Kerman]

Your comment is inapplicable to what the O.P. complained about. The URL
Ray provided was http://www.eternal-september.org so copy and paste into
the browser's address bar is indeed an explicit instruction to use http.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <657c4487$1...@news.ausics.net>, noel <delet...@invalid.lan> wrote:
>
>Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
>just fine back in the say before search engines

But it did not. Most of the early Usenet archives that were turned over
to dejanews were a combination of files people had personally saved and
fragments of Henry Spencer's backup tapes from utzoo. A lot of it was
lost meaning that although there are many postings from before dejanews
was created, the selection is not random and they cannot be used for any
statistical analysis.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[The Doctor]

In article <ku3pfh...@mid.individual.net>,

Got you!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nk.ca Ici doc...@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

[llp]

Marco Moock <mm+use...@dorfdsl.de> composa la prose suivante:

Works for me too.


--
Liste de serveurs offrant un accès gratuit à la hiérarchie FR.*
http://usenet.ovh/?article=faq_serveur_gratuit

Recherche d'article Usenet
http://usenet.ovh/?article=ual

[The Doctor]

In article <ulid3g$ni1$1...@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,

Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/15/23 10:11, The Doctor wrote:
>> Hence incompetence.
>
>Lack of caring and incompetence are two very different things.
>
>

And then you have politicians.

>
>--
>Grant. . . .

[Andy Burns]

Marco Moock wrote:

> schrieb Andy Burns:

>
>> Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.
>
> Davide Cavion <dav...@narkive.com>

I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.

[Wally J]

Marco Moock <mm+use...@dorfdsl.de> wrote

> Works for me after solving the captcha.

Thanks for teaming up to help everyone & to find the narkive admin.

Please, can one or two of you test out the search feature of the narkive?

For me, with my privacy-based setup, I wish it worked better than it does.
But maybe that's only me - which - if that's the case - then it's fine.
(My browsers are generally set to be locked up for privacy reasons.)

But it doesn't matter if I can't search - it matters if you can search.
What matters is a search results in a reference URL to a thread or post.

To be perfectly clear, I don't know much about the narkive as I usually
defaulted to dejagoogle, except when there wasn't a Google archive, e.g.,
<https://alt.comp.software.firefox.narkive.com>
<https://alt.comp.software.thunderbird.narkive.com>

Unfortunately, only for "some" ngs are there any other archives, e.g.,
<https://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-10>

But for most newsgroups, the only archive I know of left is narkive.

As always to help the team with every action I take, I wrote a letter to
David (dav...@narkive.com) asking him to look at this thread and to perhaps
work with the experts here like Dave, Marco & Grant (et al.) to come up
with a solution that helps everyone search & reference old Usenet articles.

You guys are the ones who can get things done. I can only disseminate info.
--
Usenet is a way to team up with intelligent people who care about others.

[Sn!pe]

That looks pretty good to me, kudos to the operator.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator
<snip...@gmail.com>
Google to end Usenet gateway - My pet rock Gordon just cheered.
<https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538>

[Wally J]

noel <delet...@invalid.lan> wrote

> Why would you want the content archived outside of usenet, it survived
> just fine back in the say before search engines

Aurgh.

:)

Hi Noel,
You have to think differently. Big picture. Think of others. Not yourself.
Think of those others not being technical. They don't know what you know.

I can sense that you're likely a good person so I'm trying to be gentle
when I say there is tremendous utility to _others_ to be able to search
Usenet from today to its infancy on any platform using any web browser.

It's odd that people don't see the *utility* instantly, probably because
you know too much (not because you know too little); but let me tell you
Usenet *futility* instead, which everyone here (I'm sure) knows all about.

The futility of Usenet is it requires an account.
The futility of Usenet is it requires a newsreader of some type.
The futility of Usenet is it is (almost) never archived for long.
The futility of Usenet is that it requires knowledge to read for free.
The futility of Usenet is the search is only as good as your newsreader.
The futility of Usenet is you can't easily reference an article by URL.
(Sure, you can reference a message-id but you have to find it first)

Anyway, it's pretty irksome people don't get it that it's nice to be able
to search before posting and it's even nicer to be able to reference a
thread or article for a mother who doesn't even know how to spell Usenet.

Sigh.

In summary, there's utility for a web searchable read-only archive that
goes back to the olden days (if possible) which requires only a browser.
--
On Usenet, some people forget that they know more than the average person.

[Wally J]

Richard Kettlewell <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote

> Usenet had spam before it had a web presence. Spam will appear anywhere
> that has an audience and lacks sufficient controls to prevent it.

Aurgh... :)

Some of you know too much such that you miss the real problem of the spam.
You have to look at this as a BIG PICTURE thing. Not as an expert thing.

For each and every one of us, we can implement filters (much as I did with
email in the procmail days) where, in decades of reading Usenet, even I
only had a half dozen people plonked (e.g., Snit, Sn!pe, Dustin, et al.).

Their garbage could be found on the dejagoogle archives if I ever wanted to
see it - but more importantly the *amount of spam* on the dejagoogle
archives recently multiplied from a few a day to 99.5% of the newsgroup.
e.g., <http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>

That 200 to 1 ratio is _easily_ filtered out by you who know how.
And it's even easier to filter out by Google (if they cared to filter it).

But "something happened" recently at Google.
Such that the amount is tremendous.

What does that mean to you?
Nothing.

You can filter it out.

But what does that mean to a dejagoogle web site that isn't filtering it?

HINT: *It makes the dejagoogle web search almost unusable*.
--
Especially as the dejagoogle web search wasn't all that good to start with.

[Wally J]

Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> Maybe we should keep the USENET as hidden from the world as possible.
>
> No. That is antithetical to the intentions of Usenet.

I'm pretty sure she was being cleverly facetious, which I had appreciated.

What we _want_ is for Usenet content to be available to everyone.
And that was her point I believe.

We need to find an archive to pick up where dejagoogle left off.
If people can petition David at narkive, that may help us out.

[Blueshirt]

Wally J wrote:
>
> In summary, there's utility for a web searchable read-only archive
> that goes back to the olden days (if possible) which requires only
> a browser.

https://narkive.com/

[Wally J]

Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote

>>> Does anybody here want to host a web interface like rocksolid light?
>>
>> URL?
>
> <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

Ah. Nice. Thanks Andy. So that makes two that we know of now.

<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.software.nntp>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.peering>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
and
<https://news.software.nntp.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>

Are there others?
--
Usenet is a wonderful way to meet smart people on both sides of the Pond.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <nnd$47644239$56aff236@ed594a78d9328f17>,

Again, it doesn't go back very far, that's the problem. This is great
for the future, but large chunks of the past have been lost for a while
due to google groups search brokenness, and they are going to be lost
even more completely.

[Wally J]

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote

> Like Marco, I confirm that I can reach http://www.eternal-september.org/
> which does not redirect to https://www.eternal-september.org/

I too can reach both on a slightly hardened (for privacy) web browser.
<http://www.eternal-september.org/>
<https://www.eternal-september.org/>

BTW, I love Ivo & Ray for what they do, but I need _both_ because paganini
is such a pita when it comes to posting more than a few times in a day.

About half the time bofh fails such that I have to flip over to Ray's
server. I thank them both where Ivo's server is completely different in how
it deals with more than a small handful of posts per day per IP address.
--
It's also Draconian on senseless "badword" or "badurl" or poisoned ngs.

[Davide Cavion]

Hey! I'm the guy behind Narkive.

I agree with OP, my service kinda sucks. My only excuse is that I spent
most of 2022 rewriting the backend and was about a couple of months out
from releasing something completely new when I had to drop everything
to focus on a hardware startup (I tend to do this, but now my hands are
tied and I can't just go the other way around).

- Narkive should have most posts from 2003 onwards, and the ones before
then should be integrated at some point (I think the bulk of them might
be available from archive.org).

- I removed the search functionality because it was broken more often
than not and would lead to a bad user experience. I did almost finish a
search redesign based around a cluster of servers running Vespa (which
means ANN vector search + BM25, and would have been pretty much state
of the art), but again, other stuff got in the way and those servers I
bought for the job are currently sitting idle.

- The posting functionality is something that exists and should be
fairly stable and user friendly, but that I disabled because I gave up
on limiting spam coming from it. People were abusing it and doing so
manually, slowly circumventing the measures I had in place to avoid it
from happening.

Now I'm stuck between two choices: (1) is to do nothing (as I'm just
that busy) and (2) is to apply the minimum level of changes narkive
needs to maybe be ugly, still, but somewhat usable.

I could re-enable signups, posting, and maybe look into re-idexing the
content for search once, rather than in real time (using the old,
unstable search system rather than one I was rewriting). The only issue
being that if I'm succesfully, I will have won even more work to do.

Not sure what I'm trying to achieve in sending this message, but I hope
this explain what the situation is with narkive.

Davide

[Sn!pe]

llp <l...@usenet.ovh.invalid> wrote:

> Marco Moock <mm+use...@dorfdsl.de> composa la prose suivante:
>
> >Am 15.12.2023 um 17:47:10 Uhr schrieb DV:
> >
> >> Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as
> >> it appears in your signature. It's OK in https though:
> >
> >Works for me.
>
> Works for me too.

For me, using <http://www.eternal-september.org> with Safari on
macOS 10.13 showed a warning and required the Security Policy to be
overridden. Safari on macOS 14.1 just complained that it can't connect.

<https://www.eternal-september.org> gives no problems on either OS.

[Wally J]

Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> Their excuse is completely bogus though,
>
> No, it's not. It's not an excuse either. It's a reason. The reason
> can be shortened to the last word.

Hmmm... well... ah... um... er... ok. I don't disagree with you as I never
disagree with anyone (no matter who it is) who says something reasonable.

> They just fail to tell the whole truth -- that the vast majority of the
> spam was originating from them -- and nothing but the truth -- the rest
> of the fluff that they padded their statement with.

OK. Again. I can't disagree. I never disagree with a fact.
Only fools do that. (That's why they're fools after all.)

> The fact that they are not discontinuing Google Groups supports that
> people still use (news)groups to communicate. So any comment about
> newer social media is a lie.

The part about social media is what got me on flaming Baby Cuomo's assault
on the binary Usenet newsgroups - where he "conveniently forgot" that
almost all of us post on the text-only newsgroups which have no porn.

What irked me was AT&T (who was my cable supplier at that time) dropped
Usenet piggybacking on Cuomo's lies - which was an introduction to lies^2.

> But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
> "spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.

Heh heh heh... yeah. The spam was originating from Google after all. :)

What still tells me there's more to the story than we know is that it's
trivial (IMHO) for Google to filter out the spam originating from their
servers.

Even I could do that. And I don't know a damn thing about Google's servers.
What's so hard about filtering their own users' Google-Groups-Usenet posts
when they do effective filtering with their email servers already?

Something very critical is missing from the information we're faced with.

> This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
> times before.

I worked for a decade alongside two of the smartest people in the world who
ended up working for Google on their search engine team, where even They
were impressed with how sophisticated the "normal" Google search was.

If you know them, I'll say their initials, where both worked in the Silicon
Valley with me, one of whom is D.G. and the other B.A. if you know them.

Also W.T. worked at Google who has argued with me many times that they're
not stupid (just like you argue here) but that they're told what to code.
--
The problem with knowing a lot is others know a lot - just different stuff.

[Wally J]

Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote

>>> Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.
>>
>> Davide Cavion <dav...@narkive.com>
>
> I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.

I sent him an email when I first saw this email address, oh, about an hour
or so ago - so let me check for a bounceback... looks good. No return.

I asked David to look at this thread (which, let's be clear to the
naysayers, I conveniently referenced by URL) to see if he could help out.
I even suggested some of you guys might offer him improvement advice.

Now that you reminded us of the rocksolid URL, we have two search engines
to test out to see if either works as we would have wanted dejagoogle to.

<https://news.software.nntp.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>

and
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=news.software.nntp
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=news.admin.peering
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
which redirects to:

<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.software.nntp>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.peering>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

Note that I only realized the redirect when I saw this in my old notes.
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=rocksolid.shared.helpdesk>
--
Usenet is a team of intelligent experienced people who help each other out.

[Wally J]

Davide Cavion <lovesh...@narkive.com> wrote

> Hey! I'm the guy behind Narkive.

Thanks for returning my email, where the naysayers can note I only provided
you a URL - which is the only thing needed - which is the beauty of search.

> I agree with OP, my service kinda sucks.

Oh man. I am truly sorry for having said that. I apologize. The problem is
I don't know what you know. So, for example, I don't know how hard it is.

I will STOP saying it, as my way of atoning for having done that to you.

> My only excuse is that I spent
> most of 2022 rewriting the backend and was about a couple of months out
> from releasing something completely new when I had to drop everything
> to focus on a hardware startup (I tend to do this, but now my hands are
> tied and I can't just go the other way around).

Understood. I worked for startups in the Silicon Valley for decades.
Many here (e.g., Grant) know a lot more than I do I'll let them respond.

> Not sure what I'm trying to achieve in sending this message, but I hope
> this explain what the situation is with narkive.

To me, the priority, as I see it, for the most good, is the search engine.

[Wally J]

Wally J <walte...@invalid.nospam> wrote

> Many here (e.g., Grant) know a lot more than I do I'll let them respond.

> To me, the priority, as I see it, for the most good, is the search engine.

I belatedly realized I responded to the three groups (I don't use a
newsreader, my scripts are telnet hacks) so I am re-posting Davide's
original so that the other two groups can respond to what he said.

I'll step out of this subthread as a proper response should come from those
who are experts and I'm pretty much a putz at dealing with Usenet at this
high level.

From: Davide Cavion <lovesh...@narkive.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.peering
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 23:45:22 +0100
Message-ID: <2023121523452261...@narkive.com>
References: <ulg14i$3o4hi$1...@paganini.bofh.team>
Subject: Re: Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content

Hey! I'm the guy behind Narkive.

I agree with OP, my service kinda sucks. My only excuse is that I spent

most of 2022 rewriting the backend and was about a couple of months out
from releasing something completely new when I had to drop everything
to focus on a hardware startup (I tend to do this, but now my hands are
tied and I can't just go the other way around).

- Narkive should have most posts from 2003 onwards, and the ones before
then should be integrated at some point (I think the bulk of them might
be available from archive.org).

- I removed the search functionality because it was broken more often
than not and would lead to a bad user experience. I did almost finish a
search redesign based around a cluster of servers running Vespa (which
means ANN vector search + BM25, and would have been pretty much state
of the art), but again, other stuff got in the way and those servers I
bought for the job are currently sitting idle.

- The posting functionality is something that exists and should be
fairly stable and user friendly, but that I disabled because I gave up
on limiting spam coming from it. People were abusing it and doing so
manually, slowly circumventing the measures I had in place to avoid it
from happening.

Now I'm stuck between two choices: (1) is to do nothing (as I'm just
that busy) and (2) is to apply the minimum level of changes narkive
needs to maybe be ugly, still, but somewhat usable.

I could re-enable signups, posting, and maybe look into re-idexing the
content for search once, rather than in real time (using the old,
unstable search system rather than one I was rewriting). The only issue

being that if I'm successfully, I will have won even more work to do.

Not sure what I'm trying to achieve in sending this message, but I hope
this explain what the situation is with narkive.

Davide

[Nigel Reed]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:43:52 -0600
candycanearter07 <n...@thanks.net> wrote:

> On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:
> > doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> >> They are covering their incompetence!
> >
> > And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being
> > the ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on
> > others while being on their own way out.
> >
> > Greetings
> > Marc
>
> I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people
> away from pursuing Usenet.

We need to reach out to those legitimate users that are using Google
Groups and offer them alternative access.

--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23

[Wally J]

Nigel Reed <sy...@endofthelinebbs.com> wrote

> We need to reach out to those legitimate users that are using Google
> Groups and offer them alternative access.

The good news is there are a plethora of free news servers they can employ.
<http://groups.google.com/g/alt.free.newsservers>
<https://alt.free.newsservers.narkive.com>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=alt.free.newsservers>
--
Note I wouldn't recommend paganini for new users but the rest work well.

[candycanearter07]

At the very least, a couple newsgroups (like rec.arts.comics.creative)
have their own archives that go back pretty far:
https://lists.eyrie.org/pipermail/racc/
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[candycanearter07]

On 12/15/23 12:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> candycanearter07 <n...@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 12/15/23 06:38, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>>> And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
>>> ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
>>> while being on their own way out.
>

>> I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away
>>from pursuing Usenet.
>

> Somehow Usenet will survive without the people who refuse to try Usenet
> due to believing Google's lies.

Yes, but it could still have SOME impact on new users.

[candycanearter07]

On 12/15/23 16:47, Wally J wrote:
> Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
>> "spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.
>
> Heh heh heh... yeah. The spam was originating from Google after all. :)
>
> What still tells me there's more to the story than we know is that it's
> trivial (IMHO) for Google to filter out the spam originating from their
> servers.
>
> Even I could do that. And I don't know a damn thing about Google's servers.
> What's so hard about filtering their own users' Google-Groups-Usenet posts
> when they do effective filtering with their email servers already?
>
> Something very critical is missing from the information we're faced with.
>
>> This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
>> times before.
>
> I worked for a decade alongside two of the smartest people in the world who
> ended up working for Google on their search engine team, where even They
> were impressed with how sophisticated the "normal" Google search was.
>
> If you know them, I'll say their initials, where both worked in the Silicon
> Valley with me, one of whom is D.G. and the other B.A. if you know them.
>
> Also W.T. worked at Google who has argued with me many times that they're
> not stupid (just like you argue here) but that they're told what to code.

My guess is either they were looking for an excuse to shut down the
service (maybe to save server space?), throwing a bone to get us to stop
complaining, or they legitimately forgot about the gateway.

[Ray Banana]

Thus spake Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com>

> For me www.eternal-september.org resolves to
> 135.181.20.170 and 2a01:4f9:4b:44c2::2 .For the former wget says
> "failed: Connection refused" .I can't connect to the latter either but I
> don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
> related to eternal-september .So possibly the reason that some people
> can connect and some cannot is that the people who cannot have problems
> handling IPv6 addresses in general.

Thank you for a meaningful and helpful error report. Fixed.

--
Пу́тін — хуйло́
https://www.eternal-september.org

[Sn!pe]

Some of the commercial binary servers (I have Astraweb) carry text
groups with 10+ years retention and good completeness (Giganews claims
20 years). Astraweb and others offer inexpensive non-expiring block
accounts; even a small block will last a very long time if used for text
only. Being binary servers they're not quite as "snappy" as a dedicated
text server but I find that acceptable. I don't know how searchable
they are.