I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!

Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
After: https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains

You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.

On 24 Feb 2024, david <this@is.invalid> posted some
news:uree3o$3qugo$1@i2pn2.org:

> I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
> It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
>
> Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
> After:
> https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer
> -supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains
>
> You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
> an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
> is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.

"I gue$$ they didn't care."

Capitalist cost cutting. There is no profit in providing a public
service as far as google is concerned. They did screw up. There were
many local governments using groups because it was convenient, private,
and useful information for insider trading was available for the taking.

google cut off their no$e to $pite their own face.

On 2024-02-25, david <this@is.invalid> wrote:
> I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
> It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
>
> Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
> After: https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains
>
> You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
> an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
> is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.

Well, GG was also dead to them so.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 25 Feb 2024, candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> posted some
news:urg2nh$20q0u$1@dont-email.me:

> On 2024-02-25, david <this@is.invalid> wrote:
>> I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
>> It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
>>
>> Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
>> After:
>> https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longe
>> r-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remain
>> s
>>
>> You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
>> an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
>> is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
>
> Well, GG was also dead to them so.

Trump should be announcing that Truth Social and Elon Musk have bought
Usenet from google any day now.

That would be funny as Hell if it ever happened. Feeds from Truth
Social and X, lots of new objective contributors.

a wrote:

> On 25 Feb 2024, candycanearter07
> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> posted some
> news:urg2nh$20q0u$1@dont-email.me:

>> On 2024-02-25, david <this@is.invalid> wrote:
>>> I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
>>> It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
>>>
>>> Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
>>> After:
>>> https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longe
>>> r-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remain
>>> s
>>>
>>> You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
>>> an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
>>> is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
>>
>> Well, GG was also dead to them so.

> Trump should be announcing that Truth Social and Elon Musk have bought
> Usenet from google any day now.

It would be hard for Google to sell Usenet since they've never owned it.

--
Retro Guy

Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:
>> Trump should be announcing that Truth Social and Elon Musk have bought
>> Usenet from google any day now.
>
>It would be hard for Google to sell Usenet since they've never owned it.

That never stopped any of those folks. Or the people who have repeatedly
sold the Brooklyn Bridge. There's lots of money in the business of selling
stuff you don't own.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 25/02/24 23:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:
>>> Trump should be announcing that Truth Social and Elon Musk have bought
>>> Usenet from google any day now.
>>
>> It would be hard for Google to sell Usenet since they've never owned it.
>
> That never stopped any of those folks. Or the people who have repeatedly
> sold the Brooklyn Bridge. There's lots of money in the business of selling
> stuff you don't own.
> --scott

Some might even say it's the only way to get rich.

["Followup-To:" header set to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.]
On 2024-02-26, immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
> On 25/02/24 23:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:
>>>> Trump should be announcing that Truth Social and Elon Musk have bought
>>>> Usenet from google any day now.
>>>
>>> It would be hard for Google to sell Usenet since they've never owned it.
>>
>> That never stopped any of those folks. Or the people who have repeatedly
>> sold the Brooklyn Bridge. There's lots of money in the business of selling
>> stuff you don't own.
>> --scott
>
> Some might even say it's the only way to get rich.

Or you could get like, really lucky then exploit workers.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

david wrote:
> I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
> It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
>
> Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
> After:
> https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains
>
>
> You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
> an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
> is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.

Your premise is flawed, they used multiple accounts. The spammed
newsgroup I monitor had them changing accounts every three or four
messages (that's an approximation).

On 2024-02-26, R Daneel Olivaw <Danny@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
> david wrote:
>> I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
>> It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
>>
>> Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
>> After:
>> https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains
>>
>>
>> You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
>> an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
>> is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
>
> Your premise is flawed, they used multiple accounts. The spammed
> newsgroup I monitor had them changing accounts every three or four
> messages (that's an approximation).

Maybe they also used a VPN to get around ip bans?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:23:03 +0100, R Daneel Olivaw wrote:

> david wrote:
>> I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
>> It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
>>
>> Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
>> After:
>> https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains
>>
>>
>> You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
>> an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
>> is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
>
> Your premise is flawed, they used multiple accounts. The spammed
> newsgroup I monitor had them changing accounts every three or four
> messages (that's an approximation).

One thing I did while generating nocems was add accounts (from
Injection-Info) to a spam rule if they exceeded trigger spam score by
(score X 3.5). So not all the spam, just the ones with a quite high spam
score value.

This ended up with 12,133 google-groups accounts in that rule over time.

On 2024-02-26, Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:23:03 +0100, R Daneel Olivaw wrote:
>
>> david wrote:
>>> I guess we know the answer to the question for sure now, don't we.
>>> It *was* Google from whence all that spam was emanating after all!
>>>
>>> Before: https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
>>> After:
>>> https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/489FsG6L/google-groups-no-longer-supports-new-usenet-posts-or-subscriptions-historical-content-remains
>>>
>>>
>>> You'd think Google, of all outfits, would have figured out that
>>> an account that sends a billion messages to any given newsgroup
>>> is spamming that newsgroup. I guess they didn't care.
>>
>> Your premise is flawed, they used multiple accounts. The spammed
>> newsgroup I monitor had them changing accounts every three or four
>> messages (that's an approximation).
>
> One thing I did while generating nocems was add accounts (from
> Injection-Info) to a spam rule if they exceeded trigger spam score by
> (score X 3.5). So not all the spam, just the ones with a quite high spam
> score value.
>
> This ended up with 12,133 google-groups accounts in that rule over time.

That's quite a bit.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom