group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded

Spam Report wrote:
> group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded

as is comp.lang.cobol, 36 so far today.

Le 07/02/2024 à 14:07, Andrew a écrit :

> Spam Report wrote:

Poor guy talking alone :)

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 14:07:09 +0100, Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>Spam Report wrote:
>> group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
>
>as is comp.lang.cobol, 36 so far today.

there's no going back . . . once google falls off the usenet radar, other
notoriously-spammy servers will stick out like a sore thumb, particularly
those that appear to function as troll farm storefronts . . . if almighty
google is saving face, those less invincible may not afford such luxuries

On 07/02/2024 14:03, Spam Report wrote:
> group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded

My server it's not the source of this spam, and I can't be able to
monitor all group's. But we can ask one of the NoCem bot's owner Ray or
Retro Guy to do a mass-nocem notice to delete them (or with cancels).

F/U

Sincerely

--
Ivo Gandolfo

In article <upvuu6$2d04t$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
>group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded

I don't know what paganini is, but comp.terminals is one of the more
heavily-hit recipients of the current google spamflood. If your admin
is not filtering these out, you won't have long to wait. 19 days left.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <aaa0cc6b4cd248a5e6e208902d2d874d@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 14:07:09 +0100, Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>>Spam Report wrote:
>>> group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
>>
>>as is comp.lang.cobol, 36 so far today.
>
>there's no going back . . . once google falls off the usenet radar, other
>notoriously-spammy servers will stick out like a sore thumb, particularly
>those that appear to function as troll farm storefronts . . . if almighty
>google is saving face, those less invincible may not afford such luxuries

Yes, but dumping traffic from them will be much less problematic than a
UDP on google.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <upvuu6$2d04t$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:

>>group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded

>I don't know what paganini is,

The News server paganini.bofh.team that the O.P. is a user on.

>but comp.terminals is one of the more
>heavily-hit recipients of the current google spamflood. If your admin
>is not filtering these out, you won't have long to wait. 19 days left.

Ivo Gandolfo a formulé ce mercredi :
> On 07/02/2024 14:03, Spam Report wrote:
>> group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
>
> My server it's not the source of this spam, and I can't be able to monitor
> all group's. But we can ask one of the NoCem bot's owner Ray or Retro Guy to
> do a mass-nocem notice to delete them (or with cancels).

You probably have a configuration problem with the application
of existing nocems. Otherwise you wouldn't have so much spam in
the groups mentioned.

Best regards.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 20:30:20 +0100, Ivo Gandolfo wrote:

> On 07/02/2024 14:03, Spam Report wrote:
>> group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
>
> My server it's not the source of this spam, and I can't be able to
> monitor all group's. But we can ask one of the NoCem bot's owner Ray or
> Retro Guy to do a mass-nocem notice to delete them (or with cancels).

I checked the Message-IDs of several spam on your server (paganini) and
they are already listed in NoCeM messages.

Is there maybe an issue applying the NoCeMs recently?

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <upvuu6$2d04t$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>>Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
>
>>I don't know what paganini is,
>
>The News server paganini.bofh.team that the O.P. is a user on.

Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?
I can certainly state that nocems are very effective at dealing with this
spam, and if their admins are not acceping them, they probably should be.

On the other hand, with only 19 days left, maybe they don't think it is
worth making any configuration changes at this point.
--scott

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

On 07/02/2024 23:16, Retro Guy wrote:
>
> I checked the Message-IDs of several spam on your server (paganini) and
> they are already listed in NoCeM messages.
>
> Is there maybe an issue applying the NoCeMs recently?

Seem's strange, I have added all bot's on my nocem rig. Tomorrow I will
check the log's.

Sincerely

--
Ivo Gandolfo

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>>Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:

>>>>group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded

>>>I don't know what paganini is,

>>The News server paganini.bofh.team that the O.P. is a user on.

>Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?

I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.

>I can certainly state that nocems are very effective at dealing with this
>spam, and if their admins are not acceping them, they probably should be.

>On the other hand, with only 19 days left, maybe they don't think it is
>worth making any configuration changes at this point.

On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?
> I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.

Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.

The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.

We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.

Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?

Hi,
Spam Report a tapoté :
>
> Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?

Citing the name of the server in the subject should be avoided
if you are looking to indicate the origin of the spam rather than
the fact that there is spam on this server.

--
Stéphane /translate.google/
Sorry for my bad English

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 01:19:49 -0600, Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
>On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?
>> I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
>
>Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
>The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
>We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
>Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?

as a layman this looks similar to how the massive amounts of spam that
originated from google groups appeared to be supported by servers that
were peering with google "peering!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!"

why do servers unfriendly to spammers peer with spam-friendly servers?

In article <uq1v59$2kg5u$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
>On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?
>> I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
>
>Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
>
>The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.

These servers are run by Google. They are being shut off in 18 days.

>We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
>
>Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?

Because, after many years of crap from Google, a fix is in place. But
it will take time, and for another 18 days we are all going to have to
rely on filtering to keep Usenet readable.
--scott

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

On 8 Feb 2024 14:00:14 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>In article <uq1v59$2kg5u$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
>>On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?
>>> I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
>>
>>Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
>>The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
>
>These servers are run by Google. They are being shut off in 18 days.
>
>>We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
>>Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
>
>Because, after many years of crap from Google, a fix is in place. But
>it will take time, and for another 18 days we are all going to have to
>rely on filtering to keep Usenet readable.
>--scott

maybe a moot point but george washington's 292nd birthday is 22 february

D <J@M> writes:

> On 8 Feb 2024 14:00:14 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>In article <uq1v59$2kg5u$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>>Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
>>>On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?
>>>> I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
>>>
>>>Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
>>>The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
>>
>>These servers are run by Google. They are being shut off in 18 days.
>>
>>>We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
>>>Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
>>
>>Because, after many years of crap from Google, a fix is in place. But
>>it will take time, and for another 18 days we are all going to have to
>>rely on filtering to keep Usenet readable.
>>--scott
>
> maybe a moot point but george washington's 292nd birthday is 22 february

It's not a "moot point", you illiterate, it's a non sequitur.

Le 08/02/2024 à 15:00, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) a écrit :

> These servers are run by Google. They are being shut off in 18 days.

In reality in 14 days, I checked. 22nd of February, 2024.

In article <uq12ge$2e15p$1@paganini.bofh.team>
Ivo Gandolfo <usenet@bofh.team> wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2024 23:16, Retro Guy wrote:
> >
> > I checked the Message-IDs of several spam on your server (paganini) and
> > they are already listed in NoCeM messages.
> >
> > Is there maybe an issue applying the NoCeMs recently?
>
> Seem's strange, I have added all bot's on my nocem rig. Tomorrow I will
> check the log's.

Don't let Marco touch your systems or provide scripting advice.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 17:42:33 +0000, John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:
>D <J@M> writes:
>> On 8 Feb 2024 14:00:14 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>In article <uq1v59$2kg5u$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>>>Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
>>>>On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>> Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?
>>>>> I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
>>>>
>>>>Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
>>>>The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
>>>
>>>These servers are run by Google. They are being shut off in 18 days.
>>>
>>>>We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
>>>>Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
>>>
>>>Because, after many years of crap from Google, a fix is in place. But
>>>it will take time, and for another 18 days we are all going to have to
>>>rely on filtering to keep Usenet readable.
>>>--scott
>>
>> maybe a moot point but george washington's 292nd birthday is 22 february
>
>It's not a "moot point", you illiterate, it's a non sequitur.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=palemoon&q=moot+point . . . "18 days" from today
is conspicuously five (5) days after google is expected to shut down their
usenet gateway . . . i'm only a retired hobbyist curious about everything

On 7/02/24 22:36, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <aaa0cc6b4cd248a5e6e208902d2d874d@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 14:07:09 +0100, Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>>> Spam Report wrote:
>>>> group comp.terminals on paganini is spam flooded
>>>
>>> as is comp.lang.cobol, 36 so far today.
>>
>> there's no going back . . . once google falls off the usenet radar, other
>> notoriously-spammy servers will stick out like a sore thumb, particularly
>> those that appear to function as troll farm storefronts . . . if almighty
>> google is saving face, those less invincible may not afford such luxuries
>
> Yes, but dumping traffic from them will be much less problematic than a
> UDP on google.
> --scott
>

If, as is often cited, approximately 0 useful traffic comes from Google,
then what is problematic about a UDP on it?

On 8/02/24 14:22, D wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 01:19:49 -0600, Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?
>>> I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
>>
>> Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
>> The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
>> We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
>> Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
>
> as a layman this looks similar to how the massive amounts of spam that
> originated from google groups appeared to be supported by servers that
> were peering with google "peering!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!"
>
> why do servers unfriendly to spammers peer with spam-friendly servers?
>

Surely you must realize the server you are currently using is one of the
more spam-friendly ones, and asking this question is not in your best
interest.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 04:27:22 +0100, immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>On 8/02/24 14:22, D wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 01:19:49 -0600, Spam Report <spam@report.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2/7/24 20:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Why are they not talking to their news admin then instead of posting here?
>>>> I have no idea. Nevertheless, Ivo is participating in this thread.
>>>
>>> Ivo's server configuration is not the problem or the issue.
>>> The issue is the servers from which the spam originates.
>>> We should not have to remedy the spam in the first place.
>>> Why is anyone trying deflect and put the onus on Ivo?
>>
>> as a layman this looks similar to how the massive amounts of spam that
>> originated from google groups appeared to be supported by servers that
>> were peering with google "peering!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!"
>> why do servers unfriendly to spammers peer with spam-friendly servers?
>
>Surely you must realize the server you are currently using is one of the
>more spam-friendly ones, and asking this question is not in your best
>interest.

as a continual subscriber to news:alt.privacy.anon-server since jan 1998,
i've seen plenty of discussions about anonymous remailers being used and
abused, but as for reliable statistics across all usenet newsgroups from
year to year since remailer usage became popular, that much is a mystery;
afaik google is uncontested as the number one worst spammer in the world,
but where troll farms are concerned, that seems universal to all servers