> I notice the spamming is making some experiments in actually
> using threaded replies to some of its spam,

It is crossposting. Increases web depth, improves the "quality" if the hit / link. "This shows up on multiple sites..."

Been happening for YEARS, and this most recent spate I've noticed it within the first week of its start. You can have your bots / grunts locate other threads with similar content, add (or not) a few more links, and post to the same or a different newsgroup.

David A. Smith

On 02/17/2024 05:35 AM, Dlzc wrote:
>> I notice the spamming is making some experiments in actually
>> using threaded replies to some of its spam,
>
> It is crossposting. Increases web depth, improves the "quality" if the hit / link. "This shows up on multiple sites..."
>
> Been happening for YEARS, and this most recent spate I've noticed it within the first week of its start. You can have your bots / grunts locate other threads with similar content, add (or not) a few more links, and post to the same or a different newsgroup.
>
> David A. Smith
>

It's sort of interesting, to think about how to make
Internet services, like e-mail and messaging here,
what were originally designed "non-adversarial",
"co-operative", say, and then there was "netiquette",
and a flood of noobs like myself or it was 1995,
though I suppose I bulletin-boarded at 1985,
but it was about thirty years ago.

So anyways these days there's basically how to figure
out how to adapt the same protocols, because, the tooling
and the standards and the maturity, for publicly-facing
services, and the ability to rely on security through
obscurity, or not, that basically the expectation
has inverted.

It used to be like "gamma rays might flip a bit".
These days it's "it's mostly dreck".

What was the Type I / Type II errors, false positive
and false negative, or vice-versa, has inverted,
while at the same time, the internally-facing is
still considered non-adversarial, and the standards
advise their interoperability (and quaint charm).

So, I've been wondering how to make it so to
standard up, "personal Internet services", when
for example in the old days one might publish a
Mail Exchanger resource record to DNS, and have
it be available often enough that usual email delivery
retries would succeed, vis-a-vis leaving a box connected
to the Internet where it will be randomly assaulted regularly.

So, over on sci.math, one thing I've been tapping away
at since a brief study of about 2016, and some more
recently, is how to make, "reference implementation",
of things like Usenet backend or NNTP/IMAP/HTTP,
and "reference edition" of things like "30 years of sci.math".

Then there are considerations with respect to the
federation of Usenet hosts, or the paths, and
the curation of the raw data, figuring those
are "internally-facing" yet that the data's too raw,
and a suitable amount of front-end armor, a sort of
sentinel and doorman approach, the goal of which
is to let in want and keep out not-want. (And
to not be included at all when un-necessary.)

All this of course should also follow being a
good "network actor", even when others aren't,
while being "self-sufficient", and not just
selling out or buying in to rackets of various sorts.

So anyways I've been tapping away on sci.math in
the thread "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math",
about how to make it so that even relatively non-technical
sorts, could arrive at just what they need, to stand up
their own backings for Usenet and Email and the like,
that's designed in its ecosystem with this modern sort
of perspective of "Type 1 Type 2 mode inversion",
while still being just plain standard and so richly
functional as this plain threaded forum is.

On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 11:51:07 AM UTC-6, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> It used to be like "gamma rays might flip a bit".
> These days it's "it's mostly dreck".

They are dreck peddlers, trying to stand out amongst the other dreck peddlers. Google is doing us a favor by stopping indexing (at least) new posts. Clearly, reporting the spam to Google is doing nothing immediately that I can see.

David A. Smith

So, where do you people get the idea AFTER Feb 22, the flooding will
stop???

Are yous saying it's all coming from Google Groups source website???

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 1:05:56 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> So, where do you people get the idea AFTER Feb 22, the flooding will
> stop???
>
> Are yous saying it's all coming from Google Groups source website???

No. They are saying that when Google stops crawling USENET for content, any spam posted to USENET will be invisible to search engines (or at least the Google search engine). The advertisers don't get paid, so wasting time posting to USENET becomes pointless.

David A. Smith

Dlzc wrote:

> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 1:05:56 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>> So, where do you people get the idea AFTER Feb 22, the flooding will
>> stop??? Are yous saying it's all coming from Google Groups source
>> website???
>
> No. They are saying that when Google stops crawling USENET for content,
> any spam posted to USENET will be invisible to search engines (or at
> least the Google search engine). The advertisers don't get paid, so
> wasting time posting to USENET becomes pointless.

not sure you undrestand the procedure. The flooding comes most likely from
google itself, wanting 𝘁𝗼_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆_𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘁. Making money out of it.

otherwise they could stop it long ago. Obvious a wanker 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝘆 from
amrica, their own 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 configuration. They shit together. It's a satanic
club.

On 2/19/2024 2:06 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> So, where do you people get the idea AFTER Feb 22, the flooding will
> stop???
>
>
> Are yous saying it's all coming from Google Groups source website???

The Thai casino spam is from Google and will (should) stop.

Any spammers not spamming through Google can continue to spam, but if
Google is no longer indexing Usenet, it will no longer be profitable for
them.

On 02/19/2024 05:44 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 2/19/2024 2:06 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> So, where do you people get the idea AFTER Feb 22, the flooding will
>> stop???
>>
>>
>> Are yous saying it's all coming from Google Groups source website???
>
> The Thai casino spam is from Google and will (should) stop.
>
> Any spammers not spamming through Google can continue to spam, but if
> Google is no longer indexing Usenet, it will no longer be profitable for
> them.

I think it's a sham for "spam-walling the Internet".

I.e. "Aw you got spammed, good-bye. Good luck standing
up any publicly-facing service." It seems a lot just like
the any other sort of protection racket bit.

I mean it's "thousands of fake Google accounts", ...,
or "gee thanks OAuth", maybe it's just the terrible
decision to keys-to-the-kingdom by thousands of stupid
gamblers who click-through a creds-farm to see a breast,
like "Are you sure?", "Are you sure you can't read English?".
Either way they're dupes.

If you look at something like narkiv or novabbs, they
just put some filters on their INND or what and not much spam there.

On the usual hired Usenet providers they are statedly anti-spam,
and there's some cancel-bot activity going on them, though for
example it gets out variously, each Usenet site can have its own
policy. Seems the idea is "don't post links".

So, it's sort of varying as a patch-work. There's lots to it,
though.

It was nice of Google to front to Usenet these years,
what'll be missing will be "easy search", so the idea
is to make "a Library/Museum Browse, Exhibit, Tour, Carrel"
type experience, "fuller search".

Hopefully there'll be a revival. Have you ever seen
a tent revival? Sometimes those can get pretty good.

I'm trying to figure out standard files for standard protocols
for reference implementations and reference editions,
of bring-your-own or brew-your-own, Usenet and this kind of thing.
Over on sci.math it's called "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math".

Currently it's name idea is like "usenet.science", but, it's variable.