Time to change group name?

[Lostgallifreyan]

Spam to post ratio is about 50 to 1 now! Mostly I never see the spam, I just
see the post count drop as the filters kill it. I know it's not posts because
I occasionally check to see if I killed them by a bad filter, but I'm ok at
filtering, it's a rare event.

I guess 'components' has come to mean widgets in general, especially
peripherals, seperate hi-fi boxes, etc.. So what about the obvious name of
sci.electronics.parts? Something as simple as that might give spammers the
slip because doesn't have the meaning they're assuming the current name has.
As a guide, some names that MIGHT be heavily spammed because they contain
exciting names, do NOT gwet spammed, for whatever reason, like alt.lasers.
The word LASER suggests all kind of stuff, adlanders the world over would
die, or kil, for the chance to justify its use to sell stuff at times, yet
that group has an astonishingly low spam count.

The right group name could be the best spam filter we can devise.

 

[Rich Webb]

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 04:56:17 -0500, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net>
wrote:

Spam to post ratio is about 50 to 1 now! Mostly I never see the spam, I just
see the post count drop as the filters kill it. I know it's not posts because
I occasionally check to see if I killed them by a bad filter, but I'm ok at
filtering, it's a rare event.

I guess 'components' has come to mean widgets in general, especially
peripherals, seperate hi-fi boxes, etc.. So what about the obvious name of
sci.electronics.parts?

Such a group already exists.

It's also not possible to "change [a] group name." Usenet groups are
effectively eternal [*]. How else to explain that there is a
"sci.electronics.mosc" as well as the expected "sci.electronics.misc"?
Much worse than a typo in a post's subject line; a typo in a create
group message lasts forever. Oops.



[*] at least until 12 Dec 2012, when (a) Planet X strikes, (b) the Sun
erupts, (c) the magnetosphere collapses, (d) the geographic poles flip,
or (e) Microsoft turns over all its source code to RMS.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in
news:vhf4a5p3iiujo026tllcf8drpg4pgqdmno@4ax.com:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 04:56:17 -0500, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net
wrote:

Spam to post ratio is about 50 to 1 now! Mostly I never see the spam, I
just see the post count drop as the filters kill it. I know it's not
posts because I occasionally check to see if I killed them by a bad
filter, but I'm ok at filtering, it's a rare event.

I guess 'components' has come to mean widgets in general, especially
peripherals, seperate hi-fi boxes, etc.. So what about the obvious name
of sci.electronics.parts?

Such a group already exists.

It's also not possible to "change [a] group name." Usenet groups are
effectively eternal [*]. How else to explain that there is a
"sci.electronics.mosc" as well as the expected "sci.electronics.misc"?
Much worse than a typo in a post's subject line; a typo in a create
group message lasts forever. Oops.



[*] at least until 12 Dec 2012, when (a) Planet X strikes, (b) the Sun
erupts, (c) the magnetosphere collapses, (d) the geographic poles flip,
or (e) Microsoft turns over all its source code to RMS.

Didn't know 'parts' exists, but sure, I know they stay made. That's why it's
a good idea. Leave this shithole to the spammers now. It can't get much
worse because the only way it CAN get worse is for the spam to increase. The
valid post count can't fall any lower! That means it ought to be easy to move
on, not just sensible.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Further thought: it's the word 'electronics' that is really the problem so it
could be awkward to solve this. The reason we get spammed so badly is because
'electronics' no longer means "the study and application of electron flow as
a way to do useful work", it now clearly means "a disposable means to instant
gratification of the masses". Unless we specifically and directly address
this fact, the problem is not solvable. Spammers spam where the meaning of a
place can fit their own reason to exist.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:Xns9C7DAB6388293zoodlewurdle@216.196.109.145:

Further thought: it's the word 'electronics' that is really the problem
so it could be awkward to solve this. The reason we get spammed so badly
is because 'electronics' no longer means "the study and application of
electron flow as a way to do useful work", it now clearly means "a
disposable means to instant gratification of the masses". Unless we
specifically and directly address this fact, the problem is not
solvable. Spammers spam where the meaning of a place can fit their own
reason to exist.

Last from me, it's all I can think of that fits the way things work already,
and has a small chance of working, at least for a while:

sci.elec.components (or sci.elec.parts)

And it's likely to keep politicos out becase of the sci, and tha fact that
they'd use elect not elec..

I guess the thing to do is make them if they aren't there, and see if anyone
else agrees and uses them. I think it will work because the shortening to
'elec' will hinder us far less than it will hinder spammers. Remember, all
groups are NOT spammed equally, alt.lasers has close to zero spam.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:Xns9C7DAB6388293zoodlewurdle@216.196.109.145:

Further thought: it's the word 'electronics' that is really the problem
so it could be awkward to solve this. The reason we get spammed so badly
is because 'electronics' no longer means "the study and application of
electron flow as a way to do useful work", it now clearly means "a
disposable means to instant gratification of the masses". Unless we
specifically and directly address this fact, the problem is not
solvable. Spammers spam where the meaning of a place can fit their own
reason to exist.


Last from me, it's all I can think of that fits the way things work already,
and has a small chance of working, at least for a while:

sci.elec.components (or sci.elec.parts)

And it's likely to keep politicos out becase of the sci, and tha fact that
they'd use elect not elec..

I guess the thing to do is make them if they aren't there, and see if anyone
else agrees and uses them. I think it will work because the shortening to
'elec' will hinder us far less than it will hinder spammers. Remember, all
groups are NOT spammed equally, alt.lasers has close to zero spam.

Create it, then see if anyone will carry it. The first step is to
get permission from 'The Big Eight' group to send the control message.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:It6dnVRVooM9Cj_XnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.com:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:Xns9C7DAB6388293zoodlewurdle@216.196.109.145:

Further thought: it's the word 'electronics' that is really the
problem so it could be awkward to solve this. The reason we get
spammed so badly is because 'electronics' no longer means "the study
and application of electron flow as a way to do useful work", it now
clearly means "a disposable means to instant gratification of the
masses". Unless we specifically and directly address this fact, the
problem is not solvable. Spammers spam where the meaning of a place
can fit their own reason to exist.


Last from me, it's all I can think of that fits the way things work
already, and has a small chance of working, at least for a while:

sci.elec.components (or sci.elec.parts)

And it's likely to keep politicos out becase of the sci, and tha fact
that they'd use elect not elec..

I guess the thing to do is make them if they aren't there, and see if
anyone else agrees and uses them. I think it will work because the
shortening to 'elec' will hinder us far less than it will hinder
spammers. Remember, all groups are NOT spammed equally, alt.lasers has
close to zero spam.


Create it, then see if anyone will carry it. The first step is to
get permission from 'The Big Eight' group to send the control message.

Big Eight? That's news to me. What is this control message? My plan was
just to crosspost to the new group and hope that all in support of the scheme
did so too, then as time passed we either migrate in our own time or let it
slide. Perhaps some assistance being found in a monthly post by one or two of
the most respected people here, as they are likely 'whitelisted' in many
filters and likely to accelerate takeup of this idea, if they chose to
support it this way. These monthly messages would be seen by newcomers and
rare regulars, who might also chose to cross-post to the new group. Anyway, I
think that might work, and if the signal-to-noise ratio of the new group
stayed high, people would choose to use it. Main question is whether usenet
providers would carry it, I take it that's where thgis control message thing
comes into effect?

 

[Rich Webb]

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:15:20 -0500, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net>
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:It6dnVRVooM9Cj_XnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.com:

Create it, then see if anyone will carry it. The first step is to
get permission from 'The Big Eight' group to send the control message.



Big Eight? That's news to me. What is this control message? My plan was
just to crosspost to the new group

That (posting to a "new" group) is indeed how some groups are created,
sometimes. Doing so, however, does not guarantee that the group will
show up on the major usenet nodes. As I understand it, most servers want
to see a group created with the proper bona fides before it's added to
their list. "Rogue" groups can exist but often the postings do not
propagate very far.

The right way to do this has changed somewhat over the years. The
guidelines are posted periodically in news.announce.newgroups,
news.groups, news.announce.newusers, news.admin.misc and are archived
online at <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/>
among other sites.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in
news:cua5a5dpcuuspefbmvneobu0s89mo8o3ia@4ax.com:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:15:20 -0500, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:It6dnVRVooM9Cj_XnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.com:

Create it, then see if anyone will carry it. The first step is to
get permission from 'The Big Eight' group to send the control message.



Big Eight? That's news to me. What is this control message? My plan was
just to crosspost to the new group

That (posting to a "new" group) is indeed how some groups are created,
sometimes. Doing so, however, does not guarantee that the group will
show up on the major usenet nodes. As I understand it, most servers want
to see a group created with the proper bona fides before it's added to
their list. "Rogue" groups can exist but often the postings do not
propagate very far.

The right way to do this has changed somewhat over the years. The
guidelines are posted periodically in news.announce.newgroups,
news.groups, news.announce.newusers, news.admin.misc and are archived
online at <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/
among other sites.

Ok, thanks, I'll read up on that tomorrow and see if it's something I can do,
or is best launched by one of the more respected regulars. Once it's done all
we need to do is cross-post to it consistently to get it under way, hopefully
without spammers doing likewise. Maybe all the electronics (and perhaps
electrical?) groups might similarly benefit from a shortened name of
sci.elec.whatever..

(To save people a bit of back-reading, my reasoning is that 'electronics' has
come to mean disposable gratification to many people, hence the grossly
disproportionate amounts of spam we get here).

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in
news:cua5a5dpcuuspefbmvneobu0s89mo8o3ia@4ax.com:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:15:20 -0500, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:It6dnVRVooM9Cj_XnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.com:

Create it, then see if anyone will carry it. The first step is to
get permission from 'The Big Eight' group to send the control message.



Big Eight? That's news to me. What is this control message? My plan was
just to crosspost to the new group

That (posting to a "new" group) is indeed how some groups are created,
sometimes. Doing so, however, does not guarantee that the group will
show up on the major usenet nodes. As I understand it, most servers want
to see a group created with the proper bona fides before it's added to
their list. "Rogue" groups can exist but often the postings do not
propagate very far.

The right way to do this has changed somewhat over the years. The
guidelines are posted periodically in news.announce.newgroups,
news.groups, news.announce.newusers, news.admin.misc and are archived
online at <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/
among other sites.


Ok, thanks, I'll read up on that tomorrow and see if it's something I can do,
or is best launched by one of the more respected regulars. Once it's done all
we need to do is cross-post to it consistently to get it under way, hopefully
without spammers doing likewise. Maybe all the electronics (and perhaps
electrical?) groups might similarly benefit from a shortened name of
sci.elec.whatever..

MY news server won't let me post to groups they don't support. It
rejects the message and tells me to remove that newsgroup before trying
again.


<http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php>

(To save people a bit of back-reading, my reasoning is that 'electronics' has
come to mean disposable gratification to many people, hence the grossly
disproportionate amounts of spam we get here).

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Michael Black]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Spam to post ratio is about 50 to 1 now! Mostly I never see the spam, I just
see the post count drop as the filters kill it. I know it's not posts because
I occasionally check to see if I killed them by a bad filter, but I'm ok at
filtering, it's a rare event.

You're looking at it wrong. This newsgroup has never had that much

traffic. People have decided to stick to their "own group" when posting
in the hierarchy, so people post about basic matter to .design and post
about components to .design and basic to .repair and component to .repair.
Much of the traffic this newsgroup has received has been people
crossposting between it and other newsgroups in the hierarchy, mostly
..design, people who don't bother trying to make the newsgroup better but
hedge as if it will legitimize their post if they add in .components.

You can see, because the minute someone posts to .design, there is an
endless thread, and it's all coming from .design. Someone posts to here
alone, and any replies dribble in.

If you want to increase the traffic, then you have to convince people to
leave their comfortable place, and post where it belongs, rather than
where they think it will get the most answers.

Michael

I guess 'components' has come to mean widgets in general, especially
peripherals, seperate hi-fi boxes, etc.. So what about the obvious name of
sci.electronics.parts? Something as simple as that might give spammers the
slip because doesn't have the meaning they're assuming the current name has.
As a guide, some names that MIGHT be heavily spammed because they contain
exciting names, do NOT gwet spammed, for whatever reason, like alt.lasers.
The word LASER suggests all kind of stuff, adlanders the world over would
die, or kil, for the chance to justify its use to sell stuff at times, yet
that group has an astonishingly low spam count.

The right group name could be the best spam filter we can devise.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in
newsine.LNX.4.64.0909052228170.610@darkstar.example.net:

You're looking at it wrong.

Nope. It's a specific issue and I think I addressed it better than I've ever
seen it addresses yet. I like the points you raise but they don't make mine
wrong.

This newsgroup has never had that much
traffic.

That's one of the reasons I like it. Apart from the spammers, that keeps the
signal to noise ratio high.

People have decided to stick to their "own group" when posting
in the hierarchy, so people post about basic matter to .design and post
about components to .design and basic to .repair and component to .repair.
Much of the traffic this newsgroup has received has been people
crossposting between it and other newsgroups in the hierarchy, mostly
.design, people who don't bother trying to make the newsgroup better but
hedge as if it will legitimize their post if they add in .components.

This is true but my perspective is likely a rare and useful one. My 'own
group' is actually this one. When something big happens in the others I
usually see it here anyway, and if I really want to know something I can go
there, but I usually look for my answers on Google, or model them myself, or
build something to see what it does.

You can see, because the minute someone posts to .design, there is an
endless thread, and it's all coming from .design. Someone posts to here
alone, and any replies dribble in.

Sometimes I've had to prompt again on a question, but actually I've been
content with the responses I got, and often they were solely posted here,
though if they had a design aspect I'd crosspost to .design. As to why I
choose this group as main haunt, it's from a (possibly misguided) idea that
this is the likely haunt of applied electronics, as opposed to design which
need not be and often isn't. Perhaps if people thought more of that, they
might post here more.. not my issue here though.

If you want to increase the traffic, then you have to convince people to
leave their comfortable place, and post where it belongs, rather than
where they think it will get the most answers.

That wasn't what I said, and I beleive in the old phrase about horses and
water. First rule is simple: make the water fit to drink. All I'm concerned
with is reducing pollution, which I think is the real reason posting here has
slackened off. Spam has got VERY high in the last few months, tha ratio has
exceeded 15:1 in favour of spam, in the last few years it rarely exceeded
5:1. Not sure why it recently got so heavy but it did. But my guess is the
new interpretaion that spammers place on the term 'electronics', they think
people looking for instant gratification in various forms are looking here.
Why else would they do it?

Anyway, if you look at the Big-8 naming conventions that can be found via the
links people gave me earlier, you can see that engineering is shortened to
engr, so elec makes a lot of sense, and if people really do like to cross-
post in the sci.electronics groups, why prevent it? Better to see what the
underlying pattern is, and name a smaller set of new sci.elec groups
accordingly. I suspect just three will do: .design .applied (includes
components), and .repair with .misc being un-needed becauase almost anything
will fit to one or more of those three.

I had a brief look into how to do this formally, it looks like a mentor needs
to be found, and some kind of posted appeal made by me (not sure where) that
eventually gets voted on after discussion. If there are enough votes,
presumably the groups get made and carried on enough servers to make it worth
while. Though I can't help thinking it might make just as much sense to make
them anyway, let those who agree, and are able to, cross-post to them, and
let the Big-8 see for themselves if the working example looks like it's worth
preserving.

 

[Rich Webb]

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:55:14 -0500, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net>
wrote:

I had a brief look into how to do this formally, it looks like a mentor needs
to be found, and some kind of posted appeal made by me (not sure where) that
eventually gets voted on after discussion. If there are enough votes,
presumably the groups get made and carried on enough servers to make it worth
while. Though I can't help thinking it might make just as much sense to make
them anyway,

As I understand it, a Very Bad Idea. Doing so can poison the well and
ensure that the group is never officially created.

let those who agree, and are able to, cross-post to them, and
let the Big-8 see for themselves if the working example looks like it's worth
preserving.

I've done some more digging (<cough> possibly I'm not the one who should
be doing this) and it appears that the rules for group creation in the
core hierarchy have been streamlined somewhat as of 2006. There's even a
web site! <http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=>

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in
news:3n57a599i2uqet975bdf7ql6hqqiha2iua@4ax.com:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:55:14 -0500, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net
wrote:

I had a brief look into how to do this formally, it looks like a mentor
needs to be found, and some kind of posted appeal made by me (not sure
where) that eventually gets voted on after discussion. If there are
enough votes, presumably the groups get made and carried on enough
servers to make it worth while. Though I can't help thinking it might
make just as much sense to make them anyway,

As I understand it, a Very Bad Idea. Doing so can poison the well and
ensure that the group is never officially created.

Well, this is why I mention these ideas now instead of firing off like a
loose cannon.

let those who agree, and are able to, cross-post to them, and
let the Big-8 see for themselves if the working example looks like it's
worth preserving.

I've done some more digging (<cough> possibly I'm not the one who should
be doing this)

But you did. And it makes sense. It's far faster if people who know,
respond to those who don't and have what only amounts to a good idea. That's
what Usenet is for, no?

and it appears that the rules for group creation in the
core hierarchy have been streamlined somewhat as of 2006. There's even a
web site! <http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=

Yep, I think that's what Michael Terrel posted for me last night, I've done a
bit of reading there already, an hour or so last night. So far it looks like
approaching a mentor is the way to go, but I still need a clearer idea of
what to do even before that stage. While this is a new extreme of spam to
signal ratio, truly unprecedented, and in view of forums, possible bad enough
to stifle Usenet if it's not handled well, it might still be a blip that
looks insignificant once people start posting more as summer ends. If the
ideas I've put out here have any merit they'll likely influence what actually
happens no matter who does it. My stake in these groups is so low that it's
probably best if I do restrict my activities to putting out ideas.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:57:51 -0500, Lostgallifreyan
<no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:

Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in
news:cua5a5dpcuuspefbmvneobu0s89mo8o3ia@4ax.com:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:15:20 -0500, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:It6dnVRVooM9Cj_XnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@earthlink.com:

Create it, then see if anyone will carry it. The first step is to
get permission from 'The Big Eight' group to send the control message.



Big Eight? That's news to me. What is this control message? My plan was
just to crosspost to the new group

That (posting to a "new" group) is indeed how some groups are created,
sometimes. Doing so, however, does not guarantee that the group will
show up on the major usenet nodes. As I understand it, most servers want
to see a group created with the proper bona fides before it's added to
their list. "Rogue" groups can exist but often the postings do not
propagate very far.

The right way to do this has changed somewhat over the years. The
guidelines are posted periodically in news.announce.newgroups,
news.groups, news.announce.newusers, news.admin.misc and are archived
online at <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/
among other sites.


Ok, thanks, I'll read up on that tomorrow and see if it's something I can do,
or is best launched by one of the more respected regulars. Once it's done all
we need to do is cross-post to it consistently to get it under way, hopefully
without spammers doing likewise. Maybe all the electronics (and perhaps
electrical?) groups might similarly benefit from a shortened name of
sci.elec.whatever..

(To save people a bit of back-reading, my reasoning is that 'electronics' has
come to mean disposable gratification to many people, hence the grossly
disproportionate amounts of spam we get here).

I suspect that one of the reasons is that google rates groups by
activity. Thus spammers are attracted to the most active groups. The
increase in spam makes the group more active. The rest is quite
obvious.

God damn on google for making Usenet (and children making most
everything they can touch; facebook, linkedin, and all of the social
networking things) a popularity contest.

 

[JeffM]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Further thought: it's the word 'electronics' that is really the problem

Not really. MANY low-traffic groups have turned to 99% spam.

Most of the spam you're filtering isn't for consumer electronics
it's for knock-off jeans, handbags, watches, sneakers, etc.
all from criminals in Red China.
It's obviously not legit stuff.
Anyone who clicks those links should be immediately imprisoned
for associating with a criminal organization.
Actually, when I think of a punishment that would stop it,
my thoughts go to that vandal who got caned in Malaysia.

JosephKK was closer to right about this:
After the spammers hit the high-traffic groups via Google Groups,
they click the Related Groups links there and spam them.
As Black said, it's about .design's popularity.
This group's spam is just backscatter.

Just continue to filter; you're not missing anything of value.
If you're not paying by the byte, it shouldn't matter.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

JeffM <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in news:2a7be7cf-ba0f-43d3-852d-
47f04d43d003@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Further thought: it's the word 'electronics' that is really the problem

Not really. MANY low-traffic groups have turned to 99% spam.

Not alt.lasers. Probably indicates that just as many haven't. Conversely, a
set of high-traffic groups for binaries of BBC radio broadcasts (used by
people who despaired of the BBC's long insistence on 'Real' Audio for its
Listen Again service, thankfully now improved with MP3 and AAC) saw very
little spam.

Most of the spam you're filtering isn't for consumer electronics
it's for knock-off jeans, handbags, watches, sneakers, etc.
all from criminals in Red China.
It's obviously not legit stuff.
Anyone who clicks those links should be immediately imprisoned
for associating with a criminal organization.
Actually, when I think of a punishment that would stop it,
my thoughts go to that vandal who got caned in Malaysia.

Prisons are already too full of stupid people, making them inclined to do
even worse things with their stupidity when they get out. Once clicking such
links leads to death like those caused by self-made heroes depriving
themselves of sleep in their hyperdriven career mode and falling asleep at
the wheel and killing people, then I'll reconsider that one.

JosephKK was closer to right about this:
After the spammers hit the high-traffic groups via Google Groups,
they click the Related Groups links there and spam them.
As Black said, it's about .design's popularity.
This group's spam is just backscatter.

A convincing description, but I don't think it's the only mechanism, or the
dominant one. I think spammers aren't discriminating in their approach to
consumerism, they pitch it anywhere they think the venue is about
gratification. As that drive is a popular one, popularity and gratification
go together a lot, so I'm not going to split that particular hair.

Just continue to filter; you're not missing anything of value.
If you're not paying by the byte, it shouldn't matter.

I am, but that's not really my point. It's just annoying seeing the post
count drop to zero meaninglessly when the filters kill spam after what looked
like a chance of seeing something interesting.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:Xns9C8235F7C6C72zoodlewurdle@216.196.109.145:

JeffM <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in news:2a7be7cf-ba0f-43d3-852d-
47f04d43d003@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Further thought: it's the word 'electronics' that is really the problem

Not really. MANY low-traffic groups have turned to 99% spam.

Not alt.lasers. Probably indicates that just as many haven't.
Conversely, a set of high-traffic groups for binaries of BBC radio
broadcasts (used by people who despaired of the BBC's long insistence on
'Real' Audio for its Listen Again service, thankfully now improved with
MP3 and AAC) saw very little spam.

Ought to make it clear I'm not completely stupid here.. when I say binaries,
I mean a set of groups, the main one of which has a lot of text discussion
too. If it got spammed a lot, I think we'd notice it.

 

[Mark Zenier]

In article <Xns9C7E8F1368BA4zoodlewurdle@216.196.109.145>,
Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:
....

While this is a new extreme of spam to
signal ratio, truly unprecedented, and in view of forums, possible bad enough
to stifle Usenet if it's not handled well, it might still be a blip that
looks insignificant once people start posting more as summer ends. If the
ideas I've put out here have any merit they'll likely influence what actually
happens no matter who does it. My stake in these groups is so low that it's
probably best if I do restrict my activities to putting out ideas.

It would help if you could describe the spam and just exactly how
many posts a day on average. It could be that your NSP just has
really crappy or nonexistent filters.

I know that some days, Highwinds Media, (my ISPs news source) has
despammed some groups by a factor of 60% or more, so if you've got a
lazy NSP it could get real bad. Even then, about it's 10% spam.
Recently it doubled, mostly from those Chinese Googlers selling jeans
and watches.

For a comparison experiment, try configuring your newsreader/browser
to whatever the name of the AIOE server is these days, (nntp.aioe.org?)
and see what the last week's traffic looks like there. They have a good
spam filter.

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

mzenier@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote in
news:h8dsgb0c26@enews2.newsguy.com:

In article <Xns9C7E8F1368BA4zoodlewurdle@216.196.109.145>,
Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:
...
While this is a new extreme of spam to
signal ratio, truly unprecedented, and in view of forums, possible bad
enough to stifle Usenet if it's not handled well, it might still be a
blip that looks insignificant once people start posting more as summer
ends. If the ideas I've put out here have any merit they'll likely
influence what actually happens no matter who does it. My stake in these
groups is so low that it's probably best if I do restrict my activities
to putting out ideas.

It would help if you could describe the spam and just exactly how
many posts a day on average. It could be that your NSP just has
really crappy or nonexistent filters.

Can't tell without switching off the filters and downloading it all, which I
don't want to do. I recently got a warning from BT about exceeding allowance
last month so I'm being very careful right now. To get a clear picture over
many days could mean a lot of data.

BT use Giganews. I have no idea what that means for their filters. I assume
they have none, and I add my own. (In Xnews, though when the long nights come
I'll be trying out a tool someone posted about recently. Right now I can't
even find it or remember its name but I know I stowed it safe somewhere..)

I know that some days, Highwinds Media, (my ISPs news source) has
despammed some groups by a factor of 60% or more, so if you've got a
lazy NSP it could get real bad. Even then, about it's 10% spam.
Recently it doubled, mostly from those Chinese Googlers selling jeans
and watches.

Same stuff, basically, though I think it more than doubled here in the last
few months. The way I usually know what it is is seeing the post count drop
as it gets killed, and knowing what terms I set to drop it with. The few new
ones that get by rarely bring any new surprises, just a kick-self when I see
some pattern that somehow I did not notice in earlier ones.

For a comparison experiment, try configuring your newsreader/browser
to whatever the name of the AIOE server is these days, (nntp.aioe.org?)
and see what the last week's traffic looks like there. They have a good
spam filter.

Interesting. AIOE have had some trolling originating from them so perhaps
they cleaned house and that had added benefits?

While I won't be pushing for a change to group names just because I get
annoyed with spam, I can't help thinking that reducing to three groups,
design, applied, and repair, makes sense, kind of like past, present, future.
Makes deciding where to post (and crosspost) easier, and reduces the risk of
low-traffic spamtraps. Might even have a relatively even loading of actual
use.