On 26/02/24 19:07, Andy Burns wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> Indira wrote:
>>
>>>   <https://i.postimg.cc/RZkhn6bj/googlegroups.jpg>
>>
>> Notice it doesn't say historical content will remain 'searchable.'
>
> It does, if you follow the learn more link ...
>
> "You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content
> posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."
>

All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks before
deleting their search archive.

-------- Original Message --------
From: immibis <news@immibis.com>
Date: lun, feb 26 2024 06:20:42PM GMT+00:00
Subject: Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or
subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable>>
>
> Here, a Giganews representative says their full binary feed is 20
> gigabits, sometimes 30:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/comments/184iecj/usenet_peering/
>
> That is approximately 200 terabytes per day.

It depends on what you bring as binary peering.
Currently I carry the binaries of the general hierarchies, almost all
the national or private hierarchies, and some alt.* binaries. And it is
the latter that has a lot of traffic, also because there are groups that
make no sense, and others with pirated stuff (films, TV series,
software, etc) and user backups, yes users keep their backups on usenet.
Now, you understand why I don't bring all alt.* for the bins, but I do
filter a lot of stuff.

--
Ivo Gandolfo

On 26/02/24 20:20, Ivo Gandolfo wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: immibis <news@immibis.com>
> Date: lun, feb 26 2024 06:20:42PM GMT+00:00
> Subject: Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or
> subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable>>
>>
>> Here, a Giganews representative says their full binary feed is 20
>> gigabits, sometimes 30:
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/comments/184iecj/usenet_peering/
>>
>> That is approximately 200 terabytes per day.
>
>
> It depends on what you bring as binary peering.
> Currently I carry the binaries of the general hierarchies, almost all
> the national or private hierarchies, and some alt.* binaries. And it is
> the latter that has a lot of traffic, also because there are groups that
> make no sense, and others with pirated stuff (films, TV series,
> software, etc) and user backups, yes users keep their backups on usenet.
> Now, you understand why I don't bring all alt.* for the bins, but I do
> filter a lot of stuff.
>
>
Doesn't really make sense to call it a full feed if you are filtering
99.9% of it, does it?

-------- Original Message --------
From: immibis <news@immibis.com>
Date: lun, feb 26 2024 07:38:45PM GMT+00:00
Subject: Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or
subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable
> Doesn't really make sense to call it a full feed if you are filtering
> 99.9% of it, does it?

I have write 99,9%? No. I'm filter only the 6/7% of the total (I
excluded the group's for the user backup, and some groups clearly
useless/piracy).
But that's easy recover that group if you want it.

--
Ivo Gandolfo

On 2/26/24 10:00, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Huh, I never heard of that. When did that happen?

Multiple times. I don't have dates.

--
Grant. . . .

On 2/26/24 11:37, Jan K. wrote:
> Grant used to work at Google so much of what he knows is insider
> information. You're not an insider. Me neither. I'm just a somebody.

I heard about three instances before I was at Google where Google had
gotten rid of or severely down sized the team of system administrators.

Then I was one of the many that they got rid of last year in a
restructuring.

Google really values things differently than most people think they do
or would do so themselves.

--
Grant. . . .

On 26/02/24 22:01, Ivo Gandolfo wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: immibis <news@immibis.com>
> Date: lun, feb 26 2024 07:38:45PM GMT+00:00
> Subject: Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or
> subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable
>> Doesn't really make sense to call it a full feed if you are filtering
>> 99.9% of it, does it?
>
> I have write 99,9%? No. I'm filter only the 6/7% of the total (I
> excluded the group's for the user backup, and some groups clearly
> useless/piracy).
> But that's easy recover that group if you want it.
>

As I just cited, a full binary usenet feed is about 200TB per day, and
requires a dedicated server-to-server physical link to move that much
traffic. If your feed is only 100GB per day, you're not getting 99.95%
of the feed, so it's not "full". It may be all the binary content
available from whatever server you're getting it from, but it's still
not full.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 19:28:31 +0100, immibis wrote:

> All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks before
> deleting their search archive.

What I wish Google had done was keep the search archive active, which means
adding all the new posts to the search engine, but just disable posting.

On 29 Feb 2024, Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> posted some
news:urrnhs$3mt6d$1@news.samoylyk.net:

> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 19:28:31 +0100, immibis wrote:
>
>> All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks
>> before deleting their search archive.
>
> What I wish Google had done was keep the search archive active, which
> means adding all the new posts to the search engine, but just disable
> posting.

It's not too late to make that suggestion to them.

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> On 29 Feb 2024, Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> posted some
> news:urrnhs$3mt6d$1@news.samoylyk.net:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 19:28:31 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>
>>> All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks
>>> before deleting their search archive.
>>
>> What I wish Google had done was keep the search archive active, which
>> means adding all the new posts to the search engine, but just disable
>> posting.
>
> It's not too late to make that suggestion to them.
>

It was the obvious way to go, but Google is pushing the narrative
"Usenet is dead so we're dropping it" rather than "we were the problem"
so I'd be surprised if that search-engine company still permitted
searching of new usenet content. They are throwing their toys out of
the pram.

In article <ursbug$g8vn$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
R Daneel Olivaw <Danny@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> On 29 Feb 2024, Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> posted some
>> news:urrnhs$3mt6d$1@news.samoylyk.net:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 19:28:31 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>
>>>> All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks
>>>> before deleting their search archive.
>>>
>>> What I wish Google had done was keep the search archive active, which
>>> means adding all the new posts to the search engine, but just disable
>>> posting.
>>
>> It's not too late to make that suggestion to them.
>>
>
>It was the obvious way to go, but Google is pushing the narrative
>"Usenet is dead so we're dropping it" rather than "we were the problem"
>so I'd be surprised if that search-engine company still permitted
>searching of new usenet content. They are throwing their toys out of
>the pram.

The cry of incompetent liars!
--
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
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:08:48 +0100, s|b wrote:

>> Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions.
>
> Good riddance.

You have a very bad attitude young man. <said in a scolding sort of way>
Your attitude is the same attitude many people with bad attitudes have.

People, like you, with a bad attitude, are terrible netizens because they
never think to search for an answer before they post their questions, or
they'd wrongly recommend a bad answer having never ever searched first.

I'd agree with you only if Google had killed the posting ability, but if
Google kept the incoming feeds being fed into their updated search engine.

The loss of a good (well, OK) search engine, is something to be sad about.

immibis wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> "You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content
>> posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."
>
> All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks before
> deleting their search archive.

Maybe ... I certainly don't expect they'll keep it around forever.

On 01/03/2024 05:02, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
> What I wish Google had done was keep the search archive active, which means
> adding all the new posts to the search engine, but just disable posting.
You can search for anything using google and 99.999% of the time you
will find the answer. There is no need to search Google Groups that was
ridden with 99% spam.

We now have Maori server to replace GoogleGroups sewer!!!!.

In article <urtvta$nfs5$1@paganini.bofh.team>, noreply@dutch.spammer
says...
>
> On 01/03/2024 05:02, Wolf Greenblatt wrote:
> > What I wish Google had done was keep the search archive active, which means
> > adding all the new posts to the search engine, but just disable posting.
> You can search for anything using google and 99.999% of the time you
> will find the answer. There is no need to search Google Groups that was
> ridden with 99% spam.

There aren't that many websites around today that still contain all the
information they contained in 1996, if they even existed then at all.
And the Internet Archives wayback machine is not searchable in any way.

I've searched Googles usenet archives many times to find information
that the web has forgotten, or information that has never existed on the
web outside of old usenet archives.

> We now have Maori server to replace GoogleGroups sewer!!!!.

Maori server?

Andy Burns wrote:
> immibis wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> "You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content
>>> posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."
>>
>> All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks
>> before deleting their search archive.
>
> Maybe ... I certainly don't expect they'll keep it around forever.

Does their search archive include all the spam they helped inflict on us?

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 08:51:30 +0100, R Daneel Olivaw <Danny@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>Andy Burns wrote:
>> immibis wrote:
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> "You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content
>>>> posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."
>>>
>>> All this actually means is that Google will wait at least 2 weeks
>>> before deleting their search archive.
>>
>> Maybe ... I certainly don't expect they'll keep it around forever.
>
>Does their search archive include all the spam they helped inflict on us?

it could be that google has gathered and continues to gather every bit
and byte of information universally (globally), thus the infinitesimal
sector of usenet (<0.0...001%?) is also saved and stored in facilities
at locations undisclosed . . . so the short answer is yes, it probably
is complete and unabridged, including all usenet articles (since 1980)

Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote:
>People, like you, with a bad attitude, are terrible netizens because they
>never think to search for an answer before they post their questions, or
>they'd wrongly recommend a bad answer having never ever searched first.
>
>I'd agree with you only if Google had killed the posting ability, but if
>Google kept the incoming feeds being fed into their updated search engine.
>
>The loss of a good (well, OK) search engine, is something to be sad about.

It was a useless and totally broken search engine. Nearly a decade ago
they broke the indices so that you couldn't search effectively by text
in the body or by author, making it nearly useless. You needed to know
the message-ID to find any message. Then they broke THAT and you couldn't
search by message-ID. Then it was totally useless.

After the indices were broken, the "advanced groups search page" suddenly
disappeared with no explanation, and that's about the point where it
became clear that they weren't ever going to fix anything.
--scott

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

On 02 Mar 2024, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) posted some
news:us07i6$87s$1@panix2.panix.com:

> Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> wrote:
>>People, like you, with a bad attitude, are terrible netizens because
>>they never think to search for an answer before they post their
>>questions, or they'd wrongly recommend a bad answer having never ever
>>searched first.
>>
>>I'd agree with you only if Google had killed the posting ability, but
>>if Google kept the incoming feeds being fed into their updated search
>>engine.
>>
>>The loss of a good (well, OK) search engine, is something to be sad
>>about.
>
> It was a useless and totally broken search engine. Nearly a decade
> ago they broke the indices so that you couldn't search effectively by
> text in the body or by author, making it nearly useless. You needed
> to know the message-ID to find any message. Then they broke THAT and
> you couldn't search by message-ID. Then it was totally useless.
>
> After the indices were broken, the "advanced groups search page"
> suddenly disappeared with no explanation, and that's about the point
> where it became clear that they weren't ever going to fix anything.
> --scott

Odd. I've used the following additional search options in every group in
the "Conversations" box, "v - Advanced search". It's still there now and
working fine.

Clicking it results in the following search options:

"Posted By"
"Subject"
"Has the words"
"POSTED WITHIN" -"Start Date" - "End Date"
"Has attachment"

Works like a champ except where posts have been deleted and content is no
longer available of course.

In news.admin.peering Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:

> I think most admins are using custom scripts to produce nocem messages.
> I know that I am. It's just necessary to produce a properly formatted
> and signed post, so not too complicated. I produce mine (i2pn2.org) with
> a php script, then post it with a bash script.

I just revisited this thread, so pardon me for resurrecting it after two
weeks.

It's the same in my case. A combination of Python, C++ and Bash code
filters articles and generates NoCeMs on my server (news.chmurka.net).

There's a standarized and ready-made way to process incoming NoCeMs, but
I don't know of any ready-made way to generate them (which doesn't mean
that it doesn't exist).

When adding custom filters to the server, one usually has to write some
code anyway, and NoCeMs, as Retro Guy said, aren't that complicated to
generate.

Here's a piece I wrote about NoCeMs on my server, if someone's interested.

http://news.chmurka.net/nocem.php

It's true that it's a way to automate spam filtering across servers that
trust each other, but:

a) technically nothing prevents ordinary users from using NoCeMs in their
own readers (public keys are public, everyone can verify NoCeMs), I just
don't think that there are readers that support it (but it can be added
with some amount of coding)

b) nothing prevents ordinary users from posting NoCeMs, publishing a
policy, and gaining reputation (leading to their NoCeMs being honored by
servers), although this mechanism works best if it has a realtime feed of
articles (so it's best to run it on a newsserver)

Adam

Hi Adam,

> There's a standarized and ready-made way to process incoming NoCeMs, but
> I don't know of any ready-made way to generate them (which doesn't mean
> that it doesn't exist).

There's a Perl module for that:
https://metacpan.org/pod/News::Article::NoCeM

use News::Article::NoCeM;
my $nocem = new News::Article::NoCeM();

$nocem->hide($type, $spam);
$nocem->make_notice($type, $name, $issuer, $group, $prefix);
$nocem->sign($keyid, $passphrase);
$nocem->issue($conn, $ihave);

Also, Paolo made public the tools he wrote in PHP to generate NoCeM
messages:
https://github.com/Aioe/acancelbot
https://github.com/Aioe/usenetools/tree/master/lib (see cancel.php)

I've not tested them, but they may be a good start.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Je ne suis ni pour ni contre, bien au contraire ! » (Coluche)

Good, Less Crappy Post

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:26:14 +0530, Indira <indira@ghandi.net> wrote:

>No longer can you "search before you post" at this URL for this newsgroup
> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
>
> "Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions.
> Historical content remains viewable."
> <https://i.postimg.cc/RZkhn6bj/googlegroups.jpg>
>
>The question to iron out in this thread would be what are the alternative
>web-based no-account Usenet-only search engines for general use which
>are updated and which provide a unique pointer to any given message post?

-
telnet://gallaxial.com BBS
irc://gallaxial.com IRC With Service
http://gallaxial.com:33333 Old Fashon torrent Tracker
ftp://gallaxial.com FTP server fidonet files +++
http://gallaxial.com:88 Web-FTP
-