On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:19:50 -0600, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 11/23/23 16:46, D wrote:
>> this "google doesn't care" assertion seems to be a recurring theme among
>> practically every server admin who has been discussing googlegroups spam
>
>There is a very similar and recurring theme in the email community.
>Based on what I've seen, Google is:
>1) the biggest source of email period
>2) the biggest source of spam email period
>3) the biggest source of Usenet posts period
>4) the biggest source of Usenet spam posts period
>#1 & #3 sort of beget #2 & #4 based on simple math.
>If Google sends 1,000,000 messages a day email and / or Usenet posts,
>and catches 99.9% of the spam, that's still
>1,000,000 x 0.001 = 1,000 spam messages a day.
>Play with the numbers:
> - send more messages
> - worse spam filtering ratio
>You end up with more spam messages leaving Google a day.
>The sad thing is that if they hit 99.9% accuracy in their spam filter
>that is far better than many other organizations.
>Is it fair to say that a company that blocks a higher percentage of spam
>than other companies (assuming they do for a moment) doesn't care? I
>don't think so.
>Is it fair to say that a company that sends thousands of spam messages a
>day doesn't care? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the numbers, numbers
>we might not have visibility into.
>Is it fair to say that a company that is known for not responding to
>spam complaints while sending thousands of spam messages a day doesn't
>care? Probably.
>Given what I witnessed, my opinion is that the powers that be at Google
>don't care what happens on Usenet until their involvement therewith
>becomes a (big enough) liability for the company. I assume that Google
>will cease to participate in Usenet shortly after it becomes a liability
>for them.

don't know about googlegroups.com, but gmail.com seems "to big to fail":

https://emailanalytics.com/gmail-statistics/
>20+ Gmail Statistics to Know
>by Jayson DeMers | 2 comments
>In this article, we'll explore some recent Gmail statistics -- and how to learn
>more about your own use of Gmail.
>We'll also cover some bonus email statistics at the end!
>Table of Contents [hide]
>15 Basic Gmail Statistics
> 1. There are more than 1.5 billion Gmail users.
> 2. There are more than 10 million spam and malicious emails every minute,
> all blocked by Gmail's automated machine learning (ML).
> 3. Only 0.1% of messages that make it to the inbox are spam.
> 4. Only 0.05% of automatically spam-flagged messages are not actually spam.
> 5. About 27% of all email opens are on Gmail.
> 6. Gmail offers support for 105 languages.
> 7. The average Gmail account is worth $3,588.85.
> 8. The average Gmail user has 1.7 accounts.
> 9. The average Gmail account has more than 5,700 emails.
> 10. About 75% of Gmail users access their email on a mobile device.
> 11. Among Americans aged 18-29, 61% use Gmail.
> 12. More than 20 billion emails have been migrated to Gmail.
> 13. More than 60% of mid-sized U.S. companies use Gmail.
> 14. More than two-thirds of incoming messages are promotional in nature.
> 15. The read rate for promotional emails is 19.2%.
>Gmail History and Facts
> 16. The first Gmail account went live April 1, 2004.
> 17. Gmail celebrated its first birthday with 2 GB of free storage.
> 18. Google consolidated its user storage in 2013, with 15 GB of free storage.
> 19. Gmail was considered the best webmail service in 2006.
> 20. The longest outage in Gmail history was 2.5 hours.
>Email Statistics
> 1. In 2020, there will be 306.4 billion emails sent.
> 2. The average worker gets 121 emails per day.
> 3. The click-through-rate (CTR) of emails averages 3.1%.
> 4. 6% of emails are opened on mobile devices.
>Email Sales Statistics
> 1. Only 9% of sales emails are opened.
> 2. 69% of spam flags are based purely on a subject line.
> 3. 24% of email opens happen within an hour.
> 4. The average email user deletes nearly half of the emails they receive.
> 5. Salespeople spend more than a third of their time emailing.
> 6. Emails with questions are 50% more likely to get a response.
>Visualizing Your Own Gmail Statistics
> Related posts:
[end quoted excerpt]

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gmail-users-by-country
>Gmail Users by Country 2023
>...
>https://financesonline.com/number-of-active-gmail-users/
>Number of Active Gmail Users 2022/2023: Statistics, Demographics, & Usage
>How many active Gmail users are there?
>There are over 1.8 billion active Gmail users in 2020. That's one Gmail user
>for every five people around the globe. This makes Gmail one of the most
>popular email platforms in the world.
>...
>With 1.8 billion active users, Gmail is undeniably one of the most popular
>email service providers in the US and the world. An individual needs to be
>at least 13 years old to create an account for most Google services,
>including Gmail.
[end quoted excerpt]

In article <5d7556421a45b004b687ccaa7617dbe4@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>
>don't know about googlegroups.com, but gmail.com seems "to big to fail":

Gmail and Google Groups are almost complete opposites. Gmail is used by
millions of people and is very high profile. If something happens to
Gmail, it appears in the newspaper and Google management notices very quickly.

Google Groups is a bunch of servers running in a corner without any human
intervention. Nobody in Google management has any idea that it exists, or
that Usenet exists. When something goes wrong with Google Groups, nobody
at Google has any idea, let alone their management.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <ujqsqi$2ec0l$2@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>On 11/24/23 10:45, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <ujqig8$mq2$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
>> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/24/23 08:17, D wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> roughly ten and one half million google posts/replies so far this
>>>> year, a crude and some might say far too conservative guesstimate,
>>>> ten million mostly spam articles from one source, within one year
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> That's why I gave up and filtered Google Groups on my server.
>>>
>>> I wanted to spend my time enjoying Usenet and communicating with people
>>> thereon. I was tired of spending time shoveling spam.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Grant. . . .
>>
>> Exactly why I had enough of Google GRoups!
>>
>> About time they made that a read-only service!
>
>Agreed.
>--
>user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>

Thank you!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@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

In article <5d7556421a45b004b687ccaa7617dbe4@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:19:50 -0600, Grant Taylor
><gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>On 11/23/23 16:46, D wrote:
>>> this "google doesn't care" assertion seems to be a recurring theme among
>>> practically every server admin who has been discussing googlegroups spam
>>
>>There is a very similar and recurring theme in the email community.
>>Based on what I've seen, Google is:
>>1) the biggest source of email period
>>2) the biggest source of spam email period
>>3) the biggest source of Usenet posts period
>>4) the biggest source of Usenet spam posts period
>>#1 & #3 sort of beget #2 & #4 based on simple math.
>>If Google sends 1,000,000 messages a day email and / or Usenet posts,
>>and catches 99.9% of the spam, that's still
>>1,000,000 x 0.001 = 1,000 spam messages a day.
>>Play with the numbers:
>> - send more messages
>> - worse spam filtering ratio
>>You end up with more spam messages leaving Google a day.
>>The sad thing is that if they hit 99.9% accuracy in their spam filter
>>that is far better than many other organizations.
>>Is it fair to say that a company that blocks a higher percentage of spam
>>than other companies (assuming they do for a moment) doesn't care? I
>>don't think so.
>>Is it fair to say that a company that sends thousands of spam messages a
>>day doesn't care? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the numbers, numbers
>>we might not have visibility into.
>>Is it fair to say that a company that is known for not responding to
>>spam complaints while sending thousands of spam messages a day doesn't
>>care? Probably.
>>Given what I witnessed, my opinion is that the powers that be at Google
>>don't care what happens on Usenet until their involvement therewith
>>becomes a (big enough) liability for the company. I assume that Google
>>will cease to participate in Usenet shortly after it becomes a liability
>>for them.
>
>don't know about googlegroups.com, but gmail.com seems "to big to fail":
>
>https://emailanalytics.com/gmail-statistics/
>>20+ Gmail Statistics to Know
>>by Jayson DeMers | 2 comments
>>In this article, we'll explore some recent Gmail statistics -- and how to learn
>>more about your own use of Gmail.
>>We'll also cover some bonus email statistics at the end!
>>Table of Contents [hide]
>>15 Basic Gmail Statistics
>> 1. There are more than 1.5 billion Gmail users.
>> 2. There are more than 10 million spam and malicious emails every minute,
>> all blocked by Gmail's automated machine learning (ML).
>> 3. Only 0.1% of messages that make it to the inbox are spam.
>> 4. Only 0.05% of automatically spam-flagged messages are not actually spam.
>> 5. About 27% of all email opens are on Gmail.
>> 6. Gmail offers support for 105 languages.
>> 7. The average Gmail account is worth $3,588.85.
>> 8. The average Gmail user has 1.7 accounts.
>> 9. The average Gmail account has more than 5,700 emails.
>> 10. About 75% of Gmail users access their email on a mobile device.
>> 11. Among Americans aged 18-29, 61% use Gmail.
>> 12. More than 20 billion emails have been migrated to Gmail.
>> 13. More than 60% of mid-sized U.S. companies use Gmail.
>> 14. More than two-thirds of incoming messages are promotional in nature.
>> 15. The read rate for promotional emails is 19.2%.
>>Gmail History and Facts
>> 16. The first Gmail account went live April 1, 2004.
>> 17. Gmail celebrated its first birthday with 2 GB of free storage.
>> 18. Google consolidated its user storage in 2013, with 15 GB of free storage.
>> 19. Gmail was considered the best webmail service in 2006.
>> 20. The longest outage in Gmail history was 2.5 hours.
>>Email Statistics
>> 1. In 2020, there will be 306.4 billion emails sent.
>> 2. The average worker gets 121 emails per day.
>> 3. The click-through-rate (CTR) of emails averages 3.1%.
>> 4. 6% of emails are opened on mobile devices.
>>Email Sales Statistics
>> 1. Only 9% of sales emails are opened.
>> 2. 69% of spam flags are based purely on a subject line.
>> 3. 24% of email opens happen within an hour.
>> 4. The average email user deletes nearly half of the emails they receive.
>> 5. Salespeople spend more than a third of their time emailing.
>> 6. Emails with questions are 50% more likely to get a response.
>>Visualizing Your Own Gmail Statistics
>> Related posts:
>[end quoted excerpt]
>
>https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gmail-users-by-country
>>Gmail Users by Country 2023
>>...
>>https://financesonline.com/number-of-active-gmail-users/
>>Number of Active Gmail Users 2022/2023: Statistics, Demographics, & Usage
>>How many active Gmail users are there?
>>There are over 1.8 billion active Gmail users in 2020. That's one Gmail user
>>for every five people around the globe. This makes Gmail one of the most
>>popular email platforms in the world.
>>...
>>With 1.8 billion active users, Gmail is undeniably one of the most popular
>>email service providers in the US and the world. An individual needs to be
>>at least 13 years old to create an account for most Google services,
>>including Gmail.
>[end quoted excerpt]
>

GG is loathed!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@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

In article <ujrggf$rsc$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <5d7556421a45b004b687ccaa7617dbe4@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>>
>>don't know about googlegroups.com, but gmail.com seems "to big to fail":
>
>Gmail and Google Groups are almost complete opposites. Gmail is used by
>millions of people and is very high profile. If something happens to
>Gmail, it appears in the newspaper and Google management notices very quickly.
>
>Google Groups is a bunch of servers running in a corner without any human
>intervention. Nobody in Google management has any idea that it exists, or
>that Usenet exists. When something goes wrong with Google Groups, nobody
>at Google has any idea, let alone their management.
>--scott
>

Sad gits!

>--
>"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@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

On 11/24/23 18:52, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Google Groups is a bunch of servers running in a corner without any human
> intervention.

I can assure you that Google Groups /proper/ is very well known and very
well used inside of Google. As in daily, if not hourly by some teams.

Google Groups /Usenet/ gateway is more what your comment should be
directed at.

GGUgw is really a gateway between GGP and Usenet.

Yes, GGUgw runs largely unattended by humans. But it is attended by
automation.

> Nobody in Google management has any idea that it exists, or
> that Usenet exists. When something goes wrong with Google Groups, nobody
> at Google has any idea, let alone their management.

*GGUgw

It's actually worse than that.

I know that some employees were told not to make any changes / fix
anything in the GGUgw service.

GGUgw is effectively frozen in time and will run until the rest of GGP
moves on to something that's incompatible with GGUgw.

--
Grant. . . .

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 19:46:13 -0600, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 11/24/23 18:52, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Google Groups is a bunch of servers running in a corner without any human
>> intervention.
>I can assure you that Google Groups /proper/ is very well known and very
>well used inside of Google. As in daily, if not hourly by some teams.
>Google Groups /Usenet/ gateway is more what your comment should be
>directed at.
>GGUgw is really a gateway between GGP and Usenet.
>Yes, GGUgw runs largely unattended by humans. But it is attended by
>automation.
>> Nobody in Google management has any idea that it exists, or
>> that Usenet exists. When something goes wrong with Google Groups, nobody
>> at Google has any idea, let alone their management.
>*GGUgw
>It's actually worse than that.
>I know that some employees were told not to make any changes / fix
>anything in the GGUgw service.
>GGUgw is effectively frozen in time and will run until the rest of GGP
>moves on to something that's incompatible with GGUgw.

so the right hand might not actually know what the left hand is doing,
and that sounds eerily similar to compartmentalization, "need to know"

On 11/24/23 20:50, D wrote:
> so the right hand might not actually know what the left hand is doing,
> and that sounds eerily similar to compartmentalization, "need to know"

Yep.

There's an extremely good chance that some of the 7k / 12k that got let
go earlier this year were the ones actually taking care of GGUgw.

Information sharing inside was less and less of a thing as time went on.

More and more tell the bosses more of what they want to hear and less of
what they want to not hear even if it's what they need to hear.

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>Given what I witnessed, my opinion is that the powers that be at Google
>don't care what happens on Usenet until their involvement therewith
>becomes a (big enough) liability for the company. I assume that Google
>will cease to participate in Usenet shortly after it becomes a liability
>for them.

Visibly pulling the plug on the Google Groups Usenet Interface (for
example by just making the gated groups read-only on GG) is the single
best thing that Google could do for Usenet. It would send a clear
message to the handful of legitimate users AND get rid of the spam.

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

In article <ujs4l4$fn44$1@news1.tnib.de>,
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>Given what I witnessed, my opinion is that the powers that be at Google
>>don't care what happens on Usenet until their involvement therewith
>>becomes a (big enough) liability for the company. I assume that Google
>>will cease to participate in Usenet shortly after it becomes a liability
>>for them.
>
>Visibly pulling the plug on the Google Groups Usenet Interface (for
>example by just making the gated groups read-only on GG) is the single
>best thing that Google could do for Usenet. It would send a clear
>message to the handful of legitimate users AND get rid of the spam.
>

If they know how to force the issue!

>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

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@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

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 06:37:04 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>In article <ujs4l4$fn44$1@news1.tnib.de>,
>Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
>>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>>Given what I witnessed, my opinion is that the powers that be at Google
>>>don't care what happens on Usenet until their involvement therewith
>>>becomes a (big enough) liability for the company. I assume that Google
>>>will cease to participate in Usenet shortly after it becomes a liability
>>>for them.
>>
>>Visibly pulling the plug on the Google Groups Usenet Interface (for
>>example by just making the gated groups read-only on GG) is the single
>>best thing that Google could do for Usenet. It would send a clear
>>message to the handful of legitimate users AND get rid of the spam.
>
>If they know how to force the issue!

the powers that be have always doubled-down when faced with opposition,
they circle the wagons out of survival instinct to defend their planet,
so whatever could possibly happen could only happen according to their
plan from which even they themselves cannot deviate; so "force" is out

Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
>Visibly pulling the plug on the Google Groups Usenet Interface (for
>example by just making the gated groups read-only on GG) is the single
>best thing that Google could do for Usenet. It would send a clear
>message to the handful of legitimate users AND get rid of the spam.

This is true. Except that they will do it without announcing it in advance
and without letting anyone know what happened afterward. It will just
suddenly not connect to Usenet and users will wonder why there are so few
posts.

Just like happened when they removed the advanced search and when they
broke the search indices.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 11/24/23 19:46, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 11/24/23 18:52, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Google Groups is a bunch of servers running in a corner without any human
>> intervention.
>
> I can assure you that Google Groups /proper/ is very well known and very
> well used inside of Google.  As in daily, if not hourly by some teams.
>
> Google Groups /Usenet/ gateway is more what your comment should be
> directed at.
>
> GGUgw is really a gateway between GGP and Usenet.
>
> Yes, GGUgw runs largely unattended by humans.  But it is attended by
> automation.
>
>> Nobody in Google management has any idea that it exists, or
>> that Usenet exists.  When something goes wrong with Google Groups, nobody
>> at Google has any idea, let alone their management.
>
> *GGUgw
>
> It's actually worse than that.
>
> I know that some employees were told not to make any changes / fix
> anything in the GGUgw service.
>
> GGUgw is effectively frozen in time and will run until the rest of GGP
> moves on to something that's incompatible with GGUgw.
>
>
>

So it's basically a legacy feature to them?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 11/25/23 09:10, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
>> Visibly pulling the plug on the Google Groups Usenet Interface (for
>> example by just making the gated groups read-only on GG) is the single
>> best thing that Google could do for Usenet. It would send a clear
>> message to the handful of legitimate users AND get rid of the spam.
>
> This is true. Except that they will do it without announcing it in advance
> and without letting anyone know what happened afterward. It will just
> suddenly not connect to Usenet and users will wonder why there are so few
> posts.
>
> Just like happened when they removed the advanced search and when they
> broke the search indices.
> --scott

Or removing the HTML/scriptless version of gmail. It's probably planned
like that, since avoiding news about the thing will make less people
know about it, and thus there will be less outcry. Hell, I had NO idea
until I loaded up gmail one day and noticed the HTML link on the loading
screen was replaced with a useless "Help and Support" link.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Le 25/11/2023 à 16:21, candycanearter07 a écrit :

> So it's basically a legacy feature to them?

When they bought Dejanews they thought they bought usenet.

On 25 Nov 2023 15:10:15 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
>>Visibly pulling the plug on the Google Groups Usenet Interface (for
>>example by just making the gated groups read-only on GG) is the single
>>best thing that Google could do for Usenet. It would send a clear
>>message to the handful of legitimate users AND get rid of the spam.
>
>This is true. Except that they will do it without announcing it in advance
>and without letting anyone know what happened afterward. It will just
>suddenly not connect to Usenet and users will wonder why there are so few
>posts.
>Just like happened when they removed the advanced search and when they
>broke the search indices.
>--scott

+1x10^100 . . . and a quick, painless, unexpected end to anything might
not be such a bad experience at least in the temporal sense; but skynet
could just as easily halt other, more essential services like utilities

On Sat, 25 Nov 23 15:44:48 +0000, Eric M wrote:

> Le 25/11/2023 à 16:21, candycanearter07 a écrit :
>
>> So it's basically a legacy feature to them?
>
> When they bought Dejanews they thought they bought usenet.

That made laugh :) They sure act like it.

Thus spake kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
>>Visibly pulling the plug on the Google Groups Usenet Interface (for
>>example by just making the gated groups read-only on GG) is the single
>>best thing that Google could do for Usenet. It would send a clear
>>message to the handful of legitimate users AND get rid of the spam.
> This is true. Except that they will do it without announcing it in advance
> and without letting anyone know what happened afterward. It will just
> suddenly not connect to Usenet and users will wonder why there are so few
> posts.

As I learned from several users who complained about the spam flood,
Google is actively suggesting to create new Google Groups for the same
topics and abandon the spam-infested Groups. As these new groups are
unlikely to be created on Usenet, they will be GoggleGroups only and
the GoogleGroups users will not even wonder about the reduced traffic.

Good riddance.

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

Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> wrote:

>>. . .

>As I learned from several users who complained about the spam flood,
>Google is actively suggesting to create new Google Groups for the same
>topics and abandon the spam-infested Groups. As these new groups are
>unlikely to be created on Usenet, they will be GoggleGroups only and
>the GoogleGroups users will not even wonder about the reduced traffic.

>Good riddance.

Gee, golly, I sure hope that the names of these Google Groups will be
entirely distinguishable from Usenet group names. I also hope no one
helpfully creates a gateway.

Will Google remove Usenet groups from Google Groups, giving themselves
the ultimate Usenet death penalty? Let's hope.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 22:48:35 -0600, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 11/24/23 20:50, D wrote:
>> so the right hand might not actually know what the left hand is doing,
>> and that sounds eerily similar to compartmentalization, "need to know"
>
>Yep.
>There's an extremely good chance that some of the 7k / 12k that got let
>go earlier this year were the ones actually taking care of GGUgw.
>Information sharing inside was less and less of a thing as time went on.
>More and more tell the bosses more of what they want to hear and less of
>what they want to not hear even if it's what they need to hear.

fully automated, autonomous (robotic dunsels providing theatrical effect),
as if artificial intelligence wants to sterilize the earth of human error

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 09:25:31 -0600
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
> Or removing the HTML/scriptless version of gmail. It's probably planned
> like that, since avoiding news about the thing will make less people
> know about it, and thus there will be less outcry. Hell, I had NO idea
> until I loaded up gmail one day and noticed the HTML link on the loading
> screen was replaced with a useless "Help and Support" link.

Are you referring to

Newsgroups: alt.comp.software.firefox,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.freeware
Subject: What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for Windows Firefox GMail users?
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 16:17:02 -0600
Organization: To protect and to server
Message-ID: <uevl8u$2918c$1@paganini.bofh.team>

? If yes then it was announced.

In article <8m5y1phmh0.fsf@raybanana.net>,
Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> wrote:
>Thus spake kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
>
>> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
>>>Visibly pulling the plug on the Google Groups Usenet Interface (for
>>>example by just making the gated groups read-only on GG) is the single
>>>best thing that Google could do for Usenet. It would send a clear
>>>message to the handful of legitimate users AND get rid of the spam.
>> This is true. Except that they will do it without announcing it in advance
>> and without letting anyone know what happened afterward. It will just
>> suddenly not connect to Usenet and users will wonder why there are so few
>> posts.
>
>As I learned from several users who complained about the spam flood,
>Google is actively suggesting to create new Google Groups for the same
>topics and abandon the spam-infested Groups. As these new groups are
>unlikely to be created on Usenet, they will be GoggleGroups only and
>the GoogleGroups users will not even wonder about the reduced traffic.
>
>Good riddance.

Better yet, Google should make their "Usenet" Google Groups
component Read-only and be done with the issue.

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

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@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

In article <ujtcue$2siim$3@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> wrote:
>
>>>. . .
>
>>As I learned from several users who complained about the spam flood,
>>Google is actively suggesting to create new Google Groups for the same
>>topics and abandon the spam-infested Groups. As these new groups are
>>unlikely to be created on Usenet, they will be GoggleGroups only and
>>the GoogleGroups users will not even wonder about the reduced traffic.
>
>>Good riddance.
>
>Gee, golly, I sure hope that the names of these Google Groups will be
>entirely distinguishable from Usenet group names. I also hope no one
>helpfully creates a gateway.
>
>Will Google remove Usenet groups from Google Groups, giving themselves
>the ultimate Usenet death penalty? Let's hope.

We agree on the GG UDP!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@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

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <5d7556421a45b004b687ccaa7617dbe4@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>>
>>don't know about googlegroups.com, but gmail.com seems "to big to fail":
>
> Gmail and Google Groups are almost complete opposites. Gmail is used by
> millions of people and is very high profile. If something happens to
> Gmail, it appears in the newspaper and Google management notices very quickly.

Hmm, no. I think of all the blogs out there written by people who
host their own mail server, complaining about Gmail unjustifiably
marking all their mail to Gmail addresses as spam.

Do Google care? No, they've only announced their requirement for
DKIM now that they're starting to also apply it to big servers
from commercial email hosts. Who knows what other pointless rules
they've put into their terrible spam filter system. Did the fact
that Gmail users were having thousands of emails from perfectly
innocent private email servers effectively filtered out make it
into the newspaper? No.

Usenet is a tiny niche of Google Groups, from which Google would
rather everyone switched to their own native Google-only Groups
that aren't gatewayed to Usenet. Private email servers are a tiny
niche of email, from which Google would rather everyone switched to
their own email hosting services. Very similar indeed. Much like
how it makes me all the more determined never to take either
action myself.

To actually get the issue into the newspapers, or at least the tech
news websites, I imagine organising Usenet users living near Google
HQ to stage a protest there. Hold up placards with ASCII art and
Figlet text printed on them. "KILL(file) Google", "save the
internet's first social network", and so on. It wouldn't need to be
a big crowd, just tell all the media groups in advance and I think
nostalgia's so powerful these days that many would be interested in
covering the story at least from quirky angle.

Still it might just end up being one nerdy guy walking around in a
home-made T-shirt, because it turns out there aren't enough
dedicated Usenet users out there to gather any in one place, and
that indeed is the problem.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

Le 25/11/2023 à 22:22, not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) a
écrit :

> To actually get the issue into the newspapers, or at least the tech
> news websites, I imagine organising Usenet users living near Google
> HQ to stage a protest there. Hold up placards with ASCII art and
> Figlet text printed on them. "KILL(file) Google", "save the
> internet's first social network", and so on. It wouldn't need to be
> a big crowd, just tell all the media groups in advance and I think
> nostalgia's so powerful these days that many would be interested in
> covering the story at least from quirky angle.

That sounds nice but you have to live near Google HQ. What abbout an
online protest ? It might work.

<https://study-online.sussex.ac.uk/news-and-events/social-media-and-campaigning-is-digital-activism-effective/>