seems their zero-tolerance spam policies might be unenforceable . . .

(using Tor Browser 13.0.9)
https://www.usenetserver.com/terms-of-service
>Spam. UsenetServer enforces a zero-tolerance spam policy regarding our
>users posts to usenet through our network. It is the sole discretion
>of UsenetServer to determine if a user's posts are considered spam. If
>UsenetServer has determined that a user has posted 1 or more articles
>of spam, that user will be charged a $500 per hour clean-up fee and
>the user's account will be canceled immediately with no refunds and
>all reasonable efforts will be made by UsenetServer to prevent the
>user from using our network anytime thereafter.
[end quote]

https://easynews.com/agreement/
>SPAM. Easynews enforces a zero-tolerance spam policy regarding our
>users posts to usenet through our network. It is the sole discretion
>of Easynews to determine if a user's posts are considered spam. If
>Easynews has determined that a user has posted 1 or more articles
>of spam, that user will be charged a $500 per hour clean-up fee and
>the user's account will be canceled immediately and
>all reasonable efforts will be made by Easynews to prevent the
>user from using our network anytime thereafter.
[end quote]

usenet has long-since been continuously inundated by weaponized troll farm
spam from both google and non-google servers, so once google cuts the cord
will many dozens of other servers pick up the slack without missing a beat?

D <J@M> quoted:
> If UsenetServer has determined that a user has posted 1 or more
> articles of spam, ...

> If Easynews has determined that a user has posted 1 or more articles
> of spam, ...

By definition, it's not possible to post just one article of spam.

> that user will be charged a $500 per hour clean-up fee ...

How would they collect?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Feb 4, 2024, D wrote
(in article<63c870d11c4ed13bd27a3e3f986355e0@dizum.com>):

>
> seems their zero-tolerance spam policies might be unenforceable . . .
>
> (using Tor Browser 13.0.9)
> https://www.usenetserver.com/terms-of-service
> > Spam. UsenetServer enforces a zero-tolerance spam policy regarding our
> > users posts to usenet through our network. It is the sole discretion
> > of UsenetServer to determine if a user's posts are considered spam. If
> > UsenetServer has determined that a user has posted 1 or more articles
> > of spam, that user will be charged a $500 per hour clean-up fee and
> > the user's account will be canceled immediately with no refunds and
> > all reasonable efforts will be made by UsenetServer to prevent the
> > user from using our network anytime thereafter.
> [end quote]
>
> https://easynews.com/agreement/
> > SPAM. Easynews enforces a zero-tolerance spam policy regarding our
> > users posts to usenet through our network. It is the sole discretion
> > of Easynews to determine if a user's posts are considered spam. If
> > Easynews has determined that a user has posted 1 or more articles
> > of spam, that user will be charged a $500 per hour clean-up fee and
> > the user's account will be canceled immediately and
> > all reasonable efforts will be made by Easynews to prevent the
> > user from using our network anytime thereafter.
> [end quote]
>
> usenet has long-since been continuously inundated by weaponized troll farm
> spam from both google and non-google servers, so once google cuts the cord
> will many dozens of other servers pick up the slack without missing a beat?

Eternal September, and at least one other free/cheap text-only service,
manage to both kill 99% of spam from others while not serving spam
themselves. Switch to a service which kills spam. The others will either kill
spam themselves or die. Either way, those on services which kill spam won’t
care.

In article <63c870d11c4ed13bd27a3e3f986355e0@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>usenet has long-since been continuously inundated by weaponized troll farm
>spam from both google and non-google servers, so once google cuts the cord
>will many dozens of other servers pick up the slack without missing a beat?

Likely not, because although other servers get abused, they actually have
human beings running their servers who can deal with the abuse. Google
was high profile, it is true, but the real problem is that they had the
same people spamming and spamming for years without any intervention.

There will always be spam in spite of the strongest policies, which is
why every site should be running cleanfeed, but google's complete hands-off
operation was a disaster.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 5 Feb 2024 00:03:34 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>In article <63c870d11c4ed13bd27a3e3f986355e0@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>>usenet has long-since been continuously inundated by weaponized troll farm
>>spam from both google and non-google servers, so once google cuts the cord
>>will many dozens of other servers pick up the slack without missing a beat?
>
>Likely not, because although other servers get abused, they actually have
>human beings running their servers who can deal with the abuse. Google
>was high profile, it is true, but the real problem is that they had the
>same people spamming and spamming for years without any intervention.
>There will always be spam in spite of the strongest policies, which is
>why every site should be running cleanfeed, but google's complete hands-off
>operation was a disaster.
>--scott

sybershock's sysadmin posted this gem:

>Path: n...!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: SugarBug <3883@sugar.bug>
>Newsgroups: eternal-september.talk, alt.free.newsservers, alt.september
>Subject: Looming Groupocalypse : The Google Groupsspaggheddon Cometh!
>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:38:43 -0600
>Organization: sybershock.com Baggy Jeans Mafia
>Message-ID: <1fa0133234a88bf23788c8d0ea360913$1@sybershock.com>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
> logging-data="2944723"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
> posting-account="yZybWhCr+jI4C3MuGpPde+DhCwsjQrVZrsCOigcx7fM";
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
>Xref: n... eternal-september.talk:1545 alt.free.newsservers:6379 alt.september:5
>
> A Brain Candy Rant for Tin Hatters and Texters. (SyberShock!)
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Looming Groupocalypse : The Google Groupsspaggheddon Cometh!
> Tuesday, September 11088, 1993
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> List of Free Usenet Servers: https://sybershock.com/#usenet
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Usenet is dead.
> Usenet has always been dead.
> Usenet is dying.
> Usenet is always dying.
> Live with it.
> Long live Usenet!
> Google Groups has provided Usenet access for many years
> since Google acquired DejaNews 22 years ago, circa 2002.
> For some of these years Google has allowed a non-stop spam
> flooding, denial of service attack against the Usenet
> network. Google and other large Usenet providers have
> suborned a non-stop flood of zillions and bazillions of spam
> articles over the years, making newsgroups unusable for many
> end-users, causing much exodus from the Usenet network. Some
> believe that this was not incompetence or negligence, but
> intentional malice disguised as incompetence and negligence.
> Pretending to serve a network while undermining it in deed
> comports with the principle of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish."
> Some are firmly convinced this is the real cause of the spam.
> A recent anti-spam campaign got a lot of people breathing
> down Google's neck. Rather than end the flooding and denial
> of service that it caused, Google has decided to stop
> peering Usenet feeds altogether. Some have opined that this
> is like amputating a leg to remedy a ingrown toenail. Google
> users will lose Usenet posting access without recourse.
> In February Google is pulling the plug. A large number of
> Google users will no longer be able to access Usenet. Those
> users will need to find some other way to access Usenet
> newsgroups. I like to think of it as 'unplugment day'.
> Some posters in the Usenet have been opining that it will
> be an apocalyptic event similar to Eternal September when
> hordes of AOL users were unleashed on Usenet decades ago.
> Since the influx of ISP users decimated politeness on the
> Usenet, it is said that September of 1993 never ended.
> Usenetizens still call this era the 'Eternal September.'
> Now a horde of Google Groups users will be potentially
> unleashed on the other Usenet service providers, especially
> the free providers. A swarm of new signups is expected. Some
> free Usenet providers are already dealing with a spike in
> new registrations.
> That cutoff date is February 22, 2024. After that time the
> Google users will no longer be able to access Usenet content.
> In Eternal September time the cutoff date will be the 11131st
> day of September, 1993.
> Since many Google users are clueless, some likely won't
> realize their Usenet access is sunset until the moment it is
> cut off. Then there is potential for a search panic as they
> try to discover why they cannot access Usenet groups via
> Google Groups. It has been jokingly called the Google Groups
> Apocalypse or the Google Groups Armageddon. Some users post
> Usenet articles counting down the days to the cutoff date.
> Some wordplay gives silly effect to these phrases:
> groupocalypse ==> group + apocalypse
> goopocalypse ==> google + apocalypse
> groupsspagheddon ==> groups + spaghetti + armageddon
> So now this ditty might make sense:
> The 'groupocalypse' looms.
> Google 'groupsspaggheddon' cometh.
> There shall be zoomer weeping,
> Karen wailing,
> and boomer gnashing of dentures.
> This is a spoof on verses from the books of Matthew and
> Revelation:
> "As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire;
> so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man
> shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of
> his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do
> iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there
> shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
> "The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her,
> shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping
> and wailing ..."
> "Weeping and wailing" becomes: "Zoomer weeping, Karen
> wailing ..."
> "Gnashing of teeth" becomes: "Boomer gnashing of dentures."
> I suppose that the "merchants" could spoof for spammers. Yet
> I doubt any spammers were, "made rich by her."
> Since it is the end of yet another era for Usenet, it is
> 'apocalyptic' in a lampoon way, like the end of the Usenet
> world when the month of Eternal September began. It is a
> comical, cosmological holy day, an 'apocalypse' for which we
> know the exact date of its coming. It is bombastic burlesque,
> a rampant style of humor that runs riot on Usenet.
> The impending cessation of Google Usenet peering may cause a
> chaotic scramble to find Usenet access. Or it may go hardly
> noticed, an anti-apocalyptic whimper in the night. The Google
> Groupocalypse might signal a great shift, or it may mererly
> result in less spam. That is a change I can live with.
> Whether February 22, 2024 comes in like a lion or a lamb, that
> day will always be September 11131, 1993. And one thing is
> sure: If September is eternal, then Usenet is eternal, too.
[end quote]

On 2/4/24 4:36 PM, D wrote:
> seems their zero-tolerance spam policies might be unenforceable . . .
>
> (using Tor Browser 13.0.9)
> https://www.usenetserver.com/terms-of-service
>> Spam. UsenetServer enforces a zero-tolerance spam policy regarding our
>> users posts to usenet through our network. It is the sole discretion
>> of UsenetServer to determine if a user's posts are considered spam. If
>> UsenetServer has determined that a user has posted 1 or more articles
>> of spam, that user will be charged a $500 per hour clean-up fee and
>> the user's account will be canceled immediately with no refunds and
>> all reasonable efforts will be made by UsenetServer to prevent the
>> user from using our network anytime thereafter.
> [end quote]
>
> https://easynews.com/agreement/
>> SPAM. Easynews enforces a zero-tolerance spam policy regarding our
>> users posts to usenet through our network. It is the sole discretion
>> of Easynews to determine if a user's posts are considered spam. If
>> Easynews has determined that a user has posted 1 or more articles
>> of spam, that user will be charged a $500 per hour clean-up fee and
>> the user's account will be canceled immediately and
>> all reasonable efforts will be made by Easynews to prevent the
>> user from using our network anytime thereafter.
> [end quote]

By those terms, they can declare any post spam and charge the poster a
large chunk of money, the amount determined by their own bookkeeping
methods. I'd avoid any company that works that way.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) quoted:
> sybershock's sysadmin posted this gem:
>> From: SugarBug <3883@sugar.bug>

>> Google and other large Usenet providers have suborned a non-stop
>> flood of zillions and bazillions of spam articles over the years,
>> making newsgroups unusable for many end-users, causing much
>> exodus from the Usenet network. Some believe that this was not
>> incompetence or negligence, but intentional malice disguised as
>> incompetence and negligence.

This never made sense to me. Why would any corporation *want*
to appear incompetent or negligent? That's a sure way to drive
away current and potential customers, investors, advertisers, and
employees.

2/22 isn't the end of Usenet. But it may be the beginning of the
end of Google.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 2/4/24 9:56 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) quoted:
>> sybershock's sysadmin posted this gem:
>>> From: SugarBug <3883@sugar.bug>
>
>>> Google and other large Usenet providers have suborned a non-stop
>>> flood of zillions and bazillions of spam articles over the years,
>>> making newsgroups unusable for many end-users, causing much
>>> exodus from the Usenet network. Some believe that this was not
>>> incompetence or negligence, but intentional malice disguised as
>>> incompetence and negligence.
>
> This never made sense to me. Why would any corporation *want*
> to appear incompetent or negligent? That's a sure way to drive
> away current and potential customers, investors, advertisers, and
> employees.
>
> 2/22 isn't the end of Usenet. But it may be the beginning of the
> end of Google.

Catastrophic endings make good press. Several years ago, Google dropped
its RSS reader. There were many proclamations of the end of RSS. When
the last patents on MP3 expired, the MP3 Consortium stopped demanding
royalties, as it had to. Several supposedly respectable news sources
claimed it had declared MP3 obsolete.

People are still using RSS and MP3 the last I checked.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> Catastrophic endings make good press.

It was claimed that the RMS Titanic had been destroyed. But in 1985
Ballard found it, just three miles from where it had last been seen. :-)
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 2/4/2024 9:56 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) quoted:
>> sybershock's sysadmin posted this gem:
>>> From: SugarBug <3883@sugar.bug>
>
>>> Google and other large Usenet providers have suborned a non-stop
>>> flood of zillions and bazillions of spam articles over the years,
>>> making newsgroups unusable for many end-users, causing much
>>> exodus from the Usenet network. Some believe that this was not
>>> incompetence or negligence, but intentional malice disguised as
>>> incompetence and negligence.
>
> This never made sense to me. Why would any corporation *want*
> to appear incompetent or negligent? That's a sure way to drive
> away current and potential customers, investors, advertisers, and
> employees.
>
> 2/22 isn't the end of Usenet. But it may be the beginning of the
> end of Google.

Keith has long had a very out of date view of the significance of
Usenet to the general Internet.

For at least the last decade, most Internet users haven't even
known what Usenet is, and certainly didn't miss it. Every Usenet
server could shut down, and less then 5% of users would even
notice, and even fewer would care.

GG is a tiny fraction of Alphabet's activities, and one that
does not produce any revenue. Thinking "it may be the beginning
of the end of Google" is simply delusional.

I recently switched from GG to eternal-september for three reasons:

1. I retired, and no longer spend most of my online time behind a
firewall that blocked NNTP.

2. A spammer appeared on rasf and rasfw who was posting spam in
Thai at the rate of about 1 new thread a minute. This made finding
actual content near-impossible. Eternal September drops all messages
from GG, which effectively blocked this.

3. The GG shutdown.

pt

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:19:56 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>> Catastrophic endings make good press.
>
>It was claimed that the RMS Titanic had been destroyed. But in 1985
>Ballard found it, just three miles from where it had last been seen. :-)

LOL
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com