Meta: sci.math and the spammy end of Google Groups in gambling, vice, and warez spam

Post by Ross Finlayson
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content.
Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not
appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today."

"Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?

[Bla bla bla]. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam."

Oh, really?! So that's Google's ultimate solution for stopping spam? Great!

Ross Finlayson

2023-12-15 03:00:58 UTC

"Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
[Bla bla bla]. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam."
Oh, really?! So that's Google's ultimate solution for stopping spam? Great!

No, I think it's because they can't monetize it,
though they've spammed it all quite thoroughly,
nobody buys anything from Usenet.

It's very inexpensive though to peer and serve usenet,
and the cultural significance, you figure the free market will fill a need.

I haven't much tapped at "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math", since last,
but that thread has a general outline of how to go about making one.

I wonder that, we should have some sort of ceremony, and,
that it's basically a retrospective and fest for Archimedes Plutonium,
the most well-known King of Science and Mathematics, of all sci.math.

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-12-15 03:06:28 UTC

"Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
[Bla bla bla]. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam."
Oh, really?! So that's Google's ultimate solution for stopping spam? Great!

No, I think it's because they can't monetize it,
though they've spammed it all quite thoroughly,
nobody buys anything from Usenet.
It's very inexpensive though to peer and serve usenet,
and the cultural significance, you figure the free market will fill a need.
I haven't much tapped at "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math", since last,
but that thread has a general outline of how to go about making one.
I wonder that, we should have some sort of ceremony, and,
that it's basically a retrospective and fest for Archimedes Plutonium,
the most well-known King of Science and Mathematics, of all sci.math.

Love you to, Ross-- atom

Ross Finlayson

2023-12-15 05:27:43 UTC

"Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
[Bla bla bla]. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam."
Oh, really?! So that's Google's ultimate solution for stopping spam? Great!

No, I think it's because they can't monetize it,
though they've spammed it all quite thoroughly,
nobody buys anything from Usenet.
It's very inexpensive though to peer and serve usenet,
and the cultural significance, you figure the free market will fill a need.
I haven't much tapped at "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math", since last,
but that thread has a general outline of how to go about making one.
I wonder that, we should have some sort of ceremony, and,
that it's basically a retrospective and fest for Archimedes Plutonium,
the most well-known King of Science and Mathematics, of all sci.math.

Love you to, Ross-- atom

Well, AP, what I'd like to do in your honor, is help you set up an Internet Usenet service,
or at least make sure that you have a place to post via reasonable means indefinitely,
as with regards to the simple protocol that is Usenet, as via a best-effort sort of a
lightweight fabric of a peerage, what all sorts persons might run their own instances
of usenet, then as with regards to observance of control and junk, with regards to
what newsgroups they may care to carry.

It's so inexpensive to support such an efficient little protocol, that you might find
many of like minds who then you could invite and direct to your own Internet Usenet
service, as well as with regards to provided curated and raw offerings of its contents,
to those as you would care to share in its system of communication.

Same goes for the rest of you.

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-12-15 06:18:52 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
Well, AP, what I'd like to do in your honor, is help you set up an Internet Usenet service,
or at least make sure that you have a place to post via reasonable means indefinitely,
as with regards to the simple protocol that is Usenet, as via a best-effort sort of a
lightweight fabric of a peerage, what all sorts persons might run their own instances
of usenet, then as with regards to observance of control and junk, with regards to
what newsgroups they may care to carry.
It's so inexpensive to support such an efficient little protocol, that you might find
many of like minds who then you could invite and direct to your own Internet Usenet
service, as well as with regards to provided curated and raw offerings of its contents,
to those as you would care to share in its system of communication.
Same goes for the rest of you.

Thanks for your kindness-- Ross.

I still have Plutonium-Atom-Universe Newsgroup

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

And so far, Google has _not put a sign up_ there about a halt in posting. Keeping my fingers crossed for good luck, Google allows me to operate and maintain that newsgroup. I do ONLY PURE SCIENCE there, and have no need to be as aggressive as I am when stalked by hatemongers.

So if Google lets me post in my newsgroup-- I am all fixed and set to be even more productive, as that sci.math and sci.physics have become a ocean of spam and hatred.

AP

Ross Finlayson

2023-12-15 08:41:46 UTC

"Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
[Bla bla bla]. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam."
Oh, really?! So that's Google's ultimate solution for stopping spam? Great!

No, I think it's because they can't monetize it,
though they've spammed it all quite thoroughly,
nobody buys anything from Usenet.
It's very inexpensive though to peer and serve usenet,
and the cultural significance, you figure the free market will fill a need.
I haven't much tapped at "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math", since last,
but that thread has a general outline of how to go about making one.
I wonder that, we should have some sort of ceremony, and,
that it's basically a retrospective and fest for Archimedes Plutonium,
the most well-known King of Science and Mathematics, of all sci.math.

Love you to, Ross-- atom

Well, AP, what I'd like to do in your honor, is help you set up an Internet Usenet service,
or at least make sure that you have a place to post via reasonable means indefinitely,
as with regards to the simple protocol that is Usenet, as via a best-effort sort of a
lightweight fabric of a peerage, what all sorts persons might run their own instances
of usenet, then as with regards to observance of control and junk, with regards to
what newsgroups they may care to carry.
It's so inexpensive to support such an efficient little protocol, that you might find
many of like minds who then you could invite and direct to your own Internet Usenet
service, as well as with regards to provided curated and raw offerings of its contents,
to those as you would care to share in its system of communication.
Same goes for the rest of you.

Basically figuring "New", "Old", "Off", "Bad", "Bot", "Non", then for readily filtering on those.
(Or not.)

New: new
Old: posted before
Off: off-topic most always, repetitive, ...
Bot: ...
Bad: spam, crime
Non: new, but matches bad

Then it pretty much has to be a web front-end, as with regards to browsing and posting and so on.
(While the NNTP protocol itself is great, either way.) It's not a medium conducive to rich media,
only because text is like so, as with regards to MIME, though notionally it could front media also.

I only follow three newsgroups but this is detailed quite a bit in "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math".

Looked at getting an AP news feed. Maybe an AP digest.

Ross Finlayson

2024-01-01 22:38:46 UTC

"Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
[Bla bla bla]. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam."
Oh, really?! So that's Google's ultimate solution for stopping spam? Great!

No, I think it's because they can't monetize it,
though they've spammed it all quite thoroughly,
nobody buys anything from Usenet.
It's very inexpensive though to peer and serve usenet,
and the cultural significance, you figure the free market will fill a need.
I haven't much tapped at "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math", since last,
but that thread has a general outline of how to go about making one.
I wonder that, we should have some sort of ceremony, and,
that it's basically a retrospective and fest for Archimedes Plutonium,
the most well-known King of Science and Mathematics, of all sci.math.

Love you to, Ross-- atom

Well, AP, what I'd like to do in your honor, is help you set up an Internet Usenet service,
or at least make sure that you have a place to post via reasonable means indefinitely,
as with regards to the simple protocol that is Usenet, as via a best-effort sort of a
lightweight fabric of a peerage, what all sorts persons might run their own instances
of usenet, then as with regards to observance of control and junk, with regards to
what newsgroups they may care to carry.
It's so inexpensive to support such an efficient little protocol, that you might find
many of like minds who then you could invite and direct to your own Internet Usenet
service, as well as with regards to provided curated and raw offerings of its contents,
to those as you would care to share in its system of communication.
Same goes for the rest of you.

Basically figuring "New", "Old", "Off", "Bad", "Bot", "Non", then for readily filtering on those.
(Or not.)
New: new
Old: posted before
Off: off-topic most always, repetitive, ...
Bot: ...
Bad: spam, crime
Non: new, but matches bad
Then it pretty much has to be a web front-end, as with regards to browsing and posting and so on.
(While the NNTP protocol itself is great, either way.) It's not a medium conducive to rich media,
only because text is like so, as with regards to MIME, though notionally it could front media also.
I only follow three newsgroups but this is detailed quite a bit in "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math".
Looked at getting an AP news feed. Maybe an AP digest.

There was some consideration of this on the "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math", but
what I recommend is that if you are a Google Groups poster, that you take a moment and
on the left tick each of the spam posts, which are mostly "gambling links", and after you've
selected only the spams and not any regular posters and especially not AP, then clock the
little octagon sign with the exclamation point, thus to Report Abuse and selecting "spam",
send each of these spam posts to the little hell of Google Groups' abuse mechanism.

It does seem to be the case that given enough spam complaints, that the multiplex-hydra's
accounts are deactivated.

So, if you would, take a moment to mark the spams as spam and hopefully it will send a
message that their criminal enterprise gets holed.

Ross Finlayson

2024-01-09 04:30:49 UTC

"Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
[Bla bla bla]. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam."
Oh, really?! So that's Google's ultimate solution for stopping spam? Great!

No, I think it's because they can't monetize it,
though they've spammed it all quite thoroughly,
nobody buys anything from Usenet.
It's very inexpensive though to peer and serve usenet,
and the cultural significance, you figure the free market will fill a need.
I haven't much tapped at "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math", since last,
but that thread has a general outline of how to go about making one.
I wonder that, we should have some sort of ceremony, and,
that it's basically a retrospective and fest for Archimedes Plutonium,
the most well-known King of Science and Mathematics, of all sci.math.

Love you to, Ross-- atom

Well, AP, what I'd like to do in your honor, is help you set up an Internet Usenet service,
or at least make sure that you have a place to post via reasonable means indefinitely,
as with regards to the simple protocol that is Usenet, as via a best-effort sort of a
lightweight fabric of a peerage, what all sorts persons might run their own instances
of usenet, then as with regards to observance of control and junk, with regards to
what newsgroups they may care to carry.
It's so inexpensive to support such an efficient little protocol, that you might find
many of like minds who then you could invite and direct to your own Internet Usenet
service, as well as with regards to provided curated and raw offerings of its contents,
to those as you would care to share in its system of communication.
Same goes for the rest of you.

Basically figuring "New", "Old", "Off", "Bad", "Bot", "Non", then for readily filtering on those.
(Or not.)
New: new
Old: posted before
Off: off-topic most always, repetitive, ...
Bot: ...
Bad: spam, crime
Non: new, but matches bad
Then it pretty much has to be a web front-end, as with regards to browsing and posting and so on.
(While the NNTP protocol itself is great, either way.) It's not a medium conducive to rich media,
only because text is like so, as with regards to MIME, though notionally it could front media also.
I only follow three newsgroups but this is detailed quite a bit in "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math".
Looked at getting an AP news feed. Maybe an AP digest.

There was some consideration of this on the "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math", but
what I recommend is that if you are a Google Groups poster, that you take a moment and
on the left tick each of the spam posts, which are mostly "gambling links", and after you've
selected only the spams and not any regular posters and especially not AP, then clock the
little octagon sign with the exclamation point, thus to Report Abuse and selecting "spam",
send each of these spam posts to the little hell of Google Groups' abuse mechanism.
It does seem to be the case that given enough spam complaints, that the multiplex-hydra's
accounts are deactivated.
So, if you would, take a moment to mark the spams as spam and hopefully it will send a
message that their criminal enterprise gets holed.

Yeah, if the fraudulent and, essentially stupid, fraud campaign of a denial of service
attack on this chartered chapter of free expression and association continues,
we should probably find some way to result exposing its actors,
thus so we can all get personal, being we're individuals.

So, given that it's about time to re-invent and launch an accoutrement to Big Text
Usenet with a simplest means of flood control, what do you want in a Usenet?

NNTP IMAP HTTP?
An app for that or Atom feeds?
Mail 2 News and vice versa?

What about encryption?
What kinds of ancillary data formats might you want support in attachments?
How do you feel about MIME?

Here the usual idea is to make a simplest sort of curation, basically that posters that
are good at all are repeat posters, and then that new posters basically have some hoops
to leap to get their posts so that it costs time to make a first post, and for that they
can review and edit their first sorts of posts, then to have a pretty usual way to
fade people in and out, while supporting the original organization and goals of Usenet.

Chris M. Thomasson

2024-01-23 03:54:23 UTC

On 12/15/2023 12:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]

Post by Ross Finlayson
Looked at getting an AP news feed. Maybe an AP digest.

AP digest? This Doctor might be able to help him out here:

Humm...

Ross Finlayson

2024-01-23 04:46:55 UTC

Post by Chris M. Thomasson
[...]

Post by Ross Finlayson
Looked at getting an AP news feed. Maybe an AP digest.

http://youtu.be/BdPmNM0IF7Y
Humm...

Would you care to summarize that, I tend to not follow links
from Usenet unless they're to Wikipedia or SEP.

Cultural influences of course vary.

It is though established that most here have seen "Monty Python and
the Search for the Holy Grail".

"...a grrrraaaaaaiil?" - Tim the Enchanter

If you liked Prince, you might like the end of Diamonds and Pearls, or "Things Have Gotta Change".

Heh, "Daddy Pop".

Heh, when he changed his name to "an icon that doesn't exist".

"Bellarmine ... would not do for a Pope, for he is mindful only of the interests of the Church
and is unresponsive to the reasons of princes."

When I wrote AP here I meant "Associated Press".

Chris M. Thomasson

2024-01-23 05:56:55 UTC

Post by Chris M. Thomasson
[...]

Post by Ross Finlayson
Looked at getting an AP news feed. Maybe an AP digest.

http://youtu.be/BdPmNM0IF7Y
Humm...

Would you care to summarize that, I tend to not follow links
from Usenet unless they're to Wikipedia or SEP.
Cultural influences of course vary.
It is though established that most here have seen "Monty Python and
the Search for the Holy Grail".
"...a grrrraaaaaaiil?" - Tim the Enchanter
If you liked Prince, you might like the end of Diamonds and Pearls, or "Things Have Gotta Change".
http://youtu.be/mJWVUrLAjyA

My link was to a scene from the movie Idiocracy, Dr. Lexus:

http://youtu.be/BdPmNM0IF7Y

http://youtu.be/BdPmNM0IF7Y

lol!

Post by Ross Finlayson
Heh, "Daddy Pop".
Heh, when he changed his name to "an icon that doesn't exist".
"Bellarmine ... would not do for a Pope, for he is mindful only of the interests of the Church
and is unresponsive to the reasons of princes."
When I wrote AP here I meant "Associated Press".

Oh, I thought you were referring to Archi.

Ross Finlayson

2024-12-26 19:01:05 UTC

"Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
[Bla bla bla]. Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary (non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as spam."
Oh, really?! So that's Google's ultimate solution for stopping spam? Great!

No, I think it's because they can't monetize it,
though they've spammed it all quite thoroughly,
nobody buys anything from Usenet.
It's very inexpensive though to peer and serve usenet,
and the cultural significance, you figure the free market will fill a need.
I haven't much tapped at "Meta: a usenet server just for sci.math", since last,
but that thread has a general outline of how to go about making one.
I wonder that, we should have some sort of ceremony, and,
that it's basically a retrospective and fest for Archimedes Plutonium,
the most well-known King of Science and Mathematics, of all sci.math.

Love you to, Ross-- atom

Mathin3D

2024-01-10 02:19:05 UTC

crackpots like yourself and the foe King spammers had a lot to do with that decision.

Post by Ross Finlayson
Well toodles Google Groups, it's no longer the case that Google Groups will be a peer of USENET.
We'll miss you, Google Groups posters.
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content.
Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not
appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today."

Ross Finlayson

2024-01-10 02:51:50 UTC

Post by Mathin3D
crackpots like yourself and the foe King spammers had a lot to do with that decision.

Every few years Google refresh their indexes and I fill the first page for foundations.
That and 10,000 more hits. Really there's been times when I was front page of the Internet.

So, they obviously can't have that, ....

Even better then once they trained their AI and it stopped hallucinating
about "spiral space-filling curve" and other phrases in English in mathematics.

I.e. it goes straight to teacher. (Teacher needs to see me after graduate school.)

So, ..., I guess it's sort of true that Google's business model and Usenet's purpose
don't really align.

I'm not a crackpot and the usual spammers are mostly bots.

You express an interest in math if username checks out,
what to you is "not crackpot" yet still interesting and fresh?

I.e. I've never seen anything of mathematical interest from you
so I'm curious where you get off.

Anyways then, for standing up a sort of simplified machinery for
standing up Usenet peerages dynamically, is for the sort of notion
of fungible back-ends, fungible setups and teardowns of infrastructure,
and fungible front-ends. This basically includes some conventions of
the storage formats, of the articles and indices and metadata,
and the articles in various semi-compressed forms for their
delivery very readily, then there are the protocols that are standards
and widely adopted in what your browser already would handle today,
then about how to surface that as with regards to protocols,
like NNTP and IMAP then for HTTP and data formats, how to
make it so that Usenet just carries on, and particularly to help
establish a federated sort of way to surface Usenet articles
by their ID, where don't you know every single post has its own name.

Yeah it's funny, most bibliographic style guides already include Usenet URL's,
URI's, URN's, ....

Wow, it's a modest medium for free expression.

Ross Finlayson

2024-01-10 05:34:08 UTC

Post by Mathin3D
crackpots like yourself and the foe King spammers had a lot to do with that decision.

Every few years Google refresh their indexes and I fill the first page for foundations.
That and 10,000 more hits. Really there's been times when I was front page of the Internet.
So, they obviously can't have that, ....
Even better then once they trained their AI and it stopped hallucinating
about "spiral space-filling curve" and other phrases in English in mathematics.
I.e. it goes straight to teacher. (Teacher needs to see me after graduate school.)
So, ..., I guess it's sort of true that Google's business model and Usenet's purpose
don't really align.
I'm not a crackpot and the usual spammers are mostly bots.
You express an interest in math if username checks out,
what to you is "not crackpot" yet still interesting and fresh?
I.e. I've never seen anything of mathematical interest from you
so I'm curious where you get off.
Anyways then, for standing up a sort of simplified machinery for
standing up Usenet peerages dynamically, is for the sort of notion
of fungible back-ends, fungible setups and teardowns of infrastructure,
and fungible front-ends. This basically includes some conventions of
the storage formats, of the articles and indices and metadata,
and the articles in various semi-compressed forms for their
delivery very readily, then there are the protocols that are standards
and widely adopted in what your browser already would handle today,
then about how to surface that as with regards to protocols,
like NNTP and IMAP then for HTTP and data formats, how to
make it so that Usenet just carries on, and particularly to help
establish a federated sort of way to surface Usenet articles
by their ID, where don't you know every single post has its own name.
Yeah it's funny, most bibliographic style guides already include Usenet URL's,
URI's, URN's, ....
Wow, it's a modest medium for free expression.

You see, Google's really smart and its algorithms find relevant results.
As to why they provide them for the whole industry you might figure
there's room for competition.

One thing to figure out for, "normal forms for minimal moderation",
basically is to reflect that a given channel has a topic, then with respect
to automatically, how to relate posts or at least something in the thread,
being on-topic, with regards to then how to work up how to have a simplest
form of reputation, pretty much that results a fuzzy logic with repeat posters
and particularly on-topic posters with unique sorts posts, simple approvals or
lack thereof of disapprovals, vis-a-vis reputation systems, and the old maxim
that spams need to be determined in a fair and open sort of way.

I.e. the old maxim is that "a post is spam or not" vis-a-vis "a poster is a spammer or not",
is whether the post relates to other content or the poster relates to other spams.

As well, even un-popular posters, here is for that "there's no negative points",
so that reputation is un-game-able for being one-way.

The simplest resource seems to be time, so the idea is that spam-like behavior
should cost more time, while usual behavior costs less time, to post, or author posts,
while, reading is fundamentally free altogether. (Then for curated and raw,
and only propagating curated, or for curated and raw infeeds and outfeeds,
is for the value of curation and the value of the raw, to read.)

The usual sorts of things like "points" or "teacher's pet's stars", are basically not
having a ranking of authors, instead that it as well would be by the content, what
is to result for uniqueness and, ..., correctness, how to go about figuring out what
are entirely open sorts of metrics, to result engaging in quality of content, and for
various levels, as to whether people seek the engaging, or frivolous. This is more
for bucketing and banding than grinding and gaming.

The Usenet protocol has notions of retention, no-archive, and cancellation,
vis-a-vis "policy", "control", and "junk", and limits, here the notion is essentially
an "unbounded living museum, of text articles".

Then here the idea is to make for "curated" and "raw", in the museum, this
"New/Old/Bot" and "Non/Off/Bad", or "New/Old/Off" and "Non/Bot/Bad",
sort of "curated for digest" and "curated for chat".

There is an idea that people should be able to club together, or vouch,
just not club apart. Then the idea is that bad recommendations would
have to somehow cascade, in terms of there not being the black-ball
nor the private invite, but that the lack thereof of vouching, suffices
to prevent Nons becoming News, in terms of otherwise Nons going to Bads,
as with a timeline and what is the reversibility of Old and Off and Bot and non-Bot,
and not-Bad and Bad, and whether as for the attenuation thereof, or
built-in forgetfulness of Off, then as to whether redress for Bad, or Bot.

The idea is that Nons should go to News as News invest time to get their
first posts published, and go without being rejected as Bad, according to
the related what reflect policy and agnostic content matching, in terms
of that being automatic and as of a strikes policy, vis-a-vis tolerance policies.

I.e. the point is to be both entirely open and also egalitarian, and,
resistant to meddling and gaming, where "gaming" is usually considered
some form of "exploiting", and the usual tragedy of the commons.

As well, it should sort of work unattended, and as after extended times,
a usual case of least maintenance for authors, and, readers.

Luckily, computers are so inexpensive these days, an entire this sort of
thing can run on a quite modest allotment of resources, and with a few
simple architectural principles and a usual sort of giving it away,
make for a pretty nice outlook for an enduring living museum,
of what's called "letters", and a modern-day living, working, museum of letters.

Now I suppose you might open another page and see what Madison Avenue
has deigned to put in your face, these days I see a lot of bandwidth offerings.

There's a pretty detailed work-up of how to implement on "Meta: a usenet server
just for sci.math."

So, how should the front-end work? The basic idea is that it's URLs, then as for populating
front-ends, is sort of for an Explorer sort of metaphor, Browse, vis-a-vis, Search, and Tours,
Exhibits, the metaphor of the museum.

It's pretty simple.

Ross Finlayson

2024-01-23 03:15:53 UTC

Post by Mathin3D
crackpots like yourself and the foe King spammers had a lot to do with that decision.

Every few years Google refresh their indexes and I fill the first page for foundations.
That and 10,000 more hits. Really there's been times when I was front page of the Internet.
So, they obviously can't have that, ....
Even better then once they trained their AI and it stopped hallucinating
about "spiral space-filling curve" and other phrases in English in mathematics.
I.e. it goes straight to teacher. (Teacher needs to see me after graduate school.)
So, ..., I guess it's sort of true that Google's business model and Usenet's purpose
don't really align.
I'm not a crackpot and the usual spammers are mostly bots.
You express an interest in math if username checks out,
what to you is "not crackpot" yet still interesting and fresh?
I.e. I've never seen anything of mathematical interest from you
so I'm curious where you get off.
Anyways then, for standing up a sort of simplified machinery for
standing up Usenet peerages dynamically, is for the sort of notion
of fungible back-ends, fungible setups and teardowns of infrastructure,
and fungible front-ends. This basically includes some conventions of
the storage formats, of the articles and indices and metadata,
and the articles in various semi-compressed forms for their
delivery very readily, then there are the protocols that are standards
and widely adopted in what your browser already would handle today,
then about how to surface that as with regards to protocols,
like NNTP and IMAP then for HTTP and data formats, how to
make it so that Usenet just carries on, and particularly to help
establish a federated sort of way to surface Usenet articles
by their ID, where don't you know every single post has its own name.
Yeah it's funny, most bibliographic style guides already include Usenet URL's,
URI's, URN's, ....
Wow, it's a modest medium for free expression.

You see, Google's really smart and its algorithms find relevant results.
As to why they provide them for the whole industry you might figure
there's room for competition.
One thing to figure out for, "normal forms for minimal moderation",
basically is to reflect that a given channel has a topic, then with respect
to automatically, how to relate posts or at least something in the thread,
being on-topic, with regards to then how to work up how to have a simplest
form of reputation, pretty much that results a fuzzy logic with repeat posters
and particularly on-topic posters with unique sorts posts, simple approvals or
lack thereof of disapprovals, vis-a-vis reputation systems, and the old maxim
that spams need to be determined in a fair and open sort of way.
I.e. the old maxim is that "a post is spam or not" vis-a-vis "a poster is a spammer or not",
is whether the post relates to other content or the poster relates to other spams.
As well, even un-popular posters, here is for that "there's no negative points",
so that reputation is un-game-able for being one-way.
The simplest resource seems to be time, so the idea is that spam-like behavior
should cost more time, while usual behavior costs less time, to post, or author posts,
while, reading is fundamentally free altogether. (Then for curated and raw,
and only propagating curated, or for curated and raw infeeds and outfeeds,
is for the value of curation and the value of the raw, to read.)
The usual sorts of things like "points" or "teacher's pet's stars", are basically not
having a ranking of authors, instead that it as well would be by the content, what
is to result for uniqueness and, ..., correctness, how to go about figuring out what
are entirely open sorts of metrics, to result engaging in quality of content, and for
various levels, as to whether people seek the engaging, or frivolous. This is more
for bucketing and banding than grinding and gaming.
The Usenet protocol has notions of retention, no-archive, and cancellation,
vis-a-vis "policy", "control", and "junk", and limits, here the notion is essentially
an "unbounded living museum, of text articles".
Then here the idea is to make for "curated" and "raw", in the museum, this
"New/Old/Bot" and "Non/Off/Bad", or "New/Old/Off" and "Non/Bot/Bad",
sort of "curated for digest" and "curated for chat".
There is an idea that people should be able to club together, or vouch,
just not club apart. Then the idea is that bad recommendations would
have to somehow cascade, in terms of there not being the black-ball
nor the private invite, but that the lack thereof of vouching, suffices
to prevent Nons becoming News, in terms of otherwise Nons going to Bads,
as with a timeline and what is the reversibility of Old and Off and Bot and non-Bot,
and not-Bad and Bad, and whether as for the attenuation thereof, or
built-in forgetfulness of Off, then as to whether redress for Bad, or Bot.
The idea is that Nons should go to News as News invest time to get their
first posts published, and go without being rejected as Bad, according to
the related what reflect policy and agnostic content matching, in terms
of that being automatic and as of a strikes policy, vis-a-vis tolerance policies.
I.e. the point is to be both entirely open and also egalitarian, and,
resistant to meddling and gaming, where "gaming" is usually considered
some form of "exploiting", and the usual tragedy of the commons.
As well, it should sort of work unattended, and as after extended times,
a usual case of least maintenance for authors, and, readers.
Luckily, computers are so inexpensive these days, an entire this sort of
thing can run on a quite modest allotment of resources, and with a few
simple architectural principles and a usual sort of giving it away,
make for a pretty nice outlook for an enduring living museum,
of what's called "letters", and a modern-day living, working, museum of letters.
Now I suppose you might open another page and see what Madison Avenue
has deigned to put in your face, these days I see a lot of bandwidth offerings.
There's a pretty detailed work-up of how to implement on "Meta: a usenet server
just for sci.math."
So, how should the front-end work? The basic idea is that it's URLs, then as for populating
front-ends, is sort of for an Explorer sort of metaphor, Browse, vis-a-vis, Search, and Tours,
Exhibits, the metaphor of the museum.
It's pretty simple.

Ah, the spammy end of Google Groups compeering with Usenet.

Compeering: is a word, I learned recently from reading de Santillana's "The Crime of Galileo:
1954 Time-Life book", currently up to reading about Bellarmine, and about how James used
to carry his "On the Cries of Doves" in his pocket.

There are various options floated. "Let's share a web doc", "I'm running a Coldfusion Forum",
"dial-in to a FIDO BBS and mail2news gateway", "Weturnal Remember: we've been waiting for you",
though mostly I figure it's the idea to hire one of the reputable long-running services for regular access.

There was aioe.org, and, there was a time and place when aioe.org was a pretty great thing.

Hm, let's see what alt.free.newsservers has to say about it.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.free.newsservers

Euh, .... "The Vietnamese google spam flood in rec.arts.tv", "Free Text Newsservers".

They do have a list of a bunch of "free news servers".

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.free.newsservers/c/bP2R7ho0QiY

There's a Usenet group "alt.free.newsservers".

Heh, a sig, "Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups".

Heh, it reminds me of old "steganography in the personals".

Well, I suppose somebody could make an NNTP client and start collecting Usenet hosts
and making a little up/down board for reading availability and currency then getting
into how to support posting of the innocuous text sorts.

How about "news.admin.peering: not alt":

https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering

Hm, guy the other day asks "Who is peering all these spams ostensibly from Google Groups".

Wow, "ostensibly", now that's a word.

https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw

Heh, highwinds-media, those yae-hoos.

"Note that the child-like Apple iKooks have no comprehension of the global
problem set simply by them setting a filter to filter out google groups. "

I believe the word these days is "child-ish", where "child-like" is like, "aw, the innocence",
while "child-ish" is like "child-ish iKooks have no comprehension".

Well, I better get to tapping at at a usenet science server, looks to be about a few kilobytes
of compiled code, then the redundancy and parallelism of storage and traffic,
for whoever cares to serve what.

Lowering the leech ratio.

"Compeering: it's a gerund". When I read Curme, I think of gerunds usually as participles.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/search?q=author%3AFinlayson%20subject%3AMeta

Ross Finlayson

2024-01-24 03:14:25 UTC

Post by Mathin3D
crackpots like yourself and the foe King spammers had a lot to do with that decision.

Every few years Google refresh their indexes and I fill the first page for foundations.
That and 10,000 more hits. Really there's been times when I was front page of the Internet.
So, they obviously can't have that, ....
Even better then once they trained their AI and it stopped hallucinating
about "spiral space-filling curve" and other phrases in English in mathematics.
I.e. it goes straight to teacher. (Teacher needs to see me after graduate school.)
So, ..., I guess it's sort of true that Google's business model and Usenet's purpose
don't really align.
I'm not a crackpot and the usual spammers are mostly bots.
You express an interest in math if username checks out,
what to you is "not crackpot" yet still interesting and fresh?
I.e. I've never seen anything of mathematical interest from you
so I'm curious where you get off.
Anyways then, for standing up a sort of simplified machinery for
standing up Usenet peerages dynamically, is for the sort of notion
of fungible back-ends, fungible setups and teardowns of infrastructure,
and fungible front-ends. This basically includes some conventions of
the storage formats, of the articles and indices and metadata,
and the articles in various semi-compressed forms for their
delivery very readily, then there are the protocols that are standards
and widely adopted in what your browser already would handle today,
then about how to surface that as with regards to protocols,
like NNTP and IMAP then for HTTP and data formats, how to
make it so that Usenet just carries on, and particularly to help
establish a federated sort of way to surface Usenet articles
by their ID, where don't you know every single post has its own name.
Yeah it's funny, most bibliographic style guides already include Usenet URL's,
URI's, URN's, ....
Wow, it's a modest medium for free expression.

You see, Google's really smart and its algorithms find relevant results.
As to why they provide them for the whole industry you might figure
there's room for competition.
One thing to figure out for, "normal forms for minimal moderation",
basically is to reflect that a given channel has a topic, then with respect
to automatically, how to relate posts or at least something in the thread,
being on-topic, with regards to then how to work up how to have a simplest
form of reputation, pretty much that results a fuzzy logic with repeat posters
and particularly on-topic posters with unique sorts posts, simple approvals or
lack thereof of disapprovals, vis-a-vis reputation systems, and the old maxim
that spams need to be determined in a fair and open sort of way.
I.e. the old maxim is that "a post is spam or not" vis-a-vis "a poster is a spammer or not",
is whether the post relates to other content or the poster relates to other spams.
As well, even un-popular posters, here is for that "there's no negative points",
so that reputation is un-game-able for being one-way.
The simplest resource seems to be time, so the idea is that spam-like behavior
should cost more time, while usual behavior costs less time, to post, or author posts,
while, reading is fundamentally free altogether. (Then for curated and raw,
and only propagating curated, or for curated and raw infeeds and outfeeds,
is for the value of curation and the value of the raw, to read.)
The usual sorts of things like "points" or "teacher's pet's stars", are basically not
having a ranking of authors, instead that it as well would be by the content, what
is to result for uniqueness and, ..., correctness, how to go about figuring out what
are entirely open sorts of metrics, to result engaging in quality of content, and for
various levels, as to whether people seek the engaging, or frivolous. This is more
for bucketing and banding than grinding and gaming.
The Usenet protocol has notions of retention, no-archive, and cancellation,
vis-a-vis "policy", "control", and "junk", and limits, here the notion is essentially
an "unbounded living museum, of text articles".
Then here the idea is to make for "curated" and "raw", in the museum, this
"New/Old/Bot" and "Non/Off/Bad", or "New/Old/Off" and "Non/Bot/Bad",
sort of "curated for digest" and "curated for chat".
There is an idea that people should be able to club together, or vouch,
just not club apart. Then the idea is that bad recommendations would
have to somehow cascade, in terms of there not being the black-ball
nor the private invite, but that the lack thereof of vouching, suffices
to prevent Nons becoming News, in terms of otherwise Nons going to Bads,
as with a timeline and what is the reversibility of Old and Off and Bot and non-Bot,
and not-Bad and Bad, and whether as for the attenuation thereof, or
built-in forgetfulness of Off, then as to whether redress for Bad, or Bot.
The idea is that Nons should go to News as News invest time to get their
first posts published, and go without being rejected as Bad, according to
the related what reflect policy and agnostic content matching, in terms
of that being automatic and as of a strikes policy, vis-a-vis tolerance policies.
I.e. the point is to be both entirely open and also egalitarian, and,
resistant to meddling and gaming, where "gaming" is usually considered
some form of "exploiting", and the usual tragedy of the commons.
As well, it should sort of work unattended, and as after extended times,
a usual case of least maintenance for authors, and, readers.
Luckily, computers are so inexpensive these days, an entire this sort of
thing can run on a quite modest allotment of resources, and with a few
simple architectural principles and a usual sort of giving it away,
make for a pretty nice outlook for an enduring living museum,
of what's called "letters", and a modern-day living, working, museum of letters.
Now I suppose you might open another page and see what Madison Avenue
has deigned to put in your face, these days I see a lot of bandwidth offerings.
There's a pretty detailed work-up of how to implement on "Meta: a usenet server
just for sci.math."
So, how should the front-end work? The basic idea is that it's URLs, then as for populating
front-ends, is sort of for an Explorer sort of metaphor, Browse, vis-a-vis, Search, and Tours,
Exhibits, the metaphor of the museum.
It's pretty simple.

Ah, the spammy end of Google Groups compeering with Usenet.
1954 Time-Life book", currently up to reading about Bellarmine, and about how James used
to carry his "On the Cries of Doves" in his pocket.
There are various options floated. "Let's share a web doc", "I'm running a Coldfusion Forum",
"dial-in to a FIDO BBS and mail2news gateway", "Weturnal Remember: we've been waiting for you",
though mostly I figure it's the idea to hire one of the reputable long-running services for regular access.
There was aioe.org, and, there was a time and place when aioe.org was a pretty great thing.
Hm, let's see what alt.free.newsservers has to say about it.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.free.newsservers
Euh, .... "The Vietnamese google spam flood in rec.arts.tv", "Free Text Newsservers".
They do have a list of a bunch of "free news servers".
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.free.newsservers/c/bP2R7ho0QiY
There's a Usenet group "alt.free.newsservers".
Heh, a sig, "Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups".
Heh, it reminds me of old "steganography in the personals".
Well, I suppose somebody could make an NNTP client and start collecting Usenet hosts
and making a little up/down board for reading availability and currency then getting
into how to support posting of the innocuous text sorts.
https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering
Hm, guy the other day asks "Who is peering all these spams ostensibly from Google Groups".
Wow, "ostensibly", now that's a word.
https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/AgrNUeZuAkw
Heh, highwinds-media, those yae-hoos.
"Note that the child-like Apple iKooks have no comprehension of the global
problem set simply by them setting a filter to filter out google groups. "
I believe the word these days is "child-ish", where "child-like" is like, "aw, the innocence",
while "child-ish" is like "child-ish iKooks have no comprehension".
Well, I better get to tapping at at a usenet science server, looks to be about a few kilobytes
of compiled code, then the redundancy and parallelism of storage and traffic,
for whoever cares to serve what.
Lowering the leech ratio.
"Compeering: it's a gerund". When I read Curme, I think of gerunds usually as participles.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/search?q=author%3AFinlayson%20subject%3AMeta

Well, the Google seemingly having abdicated patrolling abuse of its logins,
I'm not sure but wonder to at least collect all these spam logins and send them up.

Probably what happened is one of the trawling-account farms' secret-squirrel
login automations get compromised and Google can't shut down the rest of
its secret-squirrel mechanized fake-ID systems. Or, you know, maybe.

Maybe it's just they scraped accounts, then are faking the posts, "fakemail",
those feeding in from Usenet, with headers fraudulently counterfeited
in terms of mechanisms, of, "message integrity", and "message authentication".

Here it's clearly an _attack_ on the system, nobody buys anything from Usenet
so it's obviously having resources of a mass-mailer being wasted to make a mess.

Of course the gambling bit after the bit ly URL bits, I've never followed one so
I don't know what's behind them, then as far as the eBook bits, they are probably
just scraped and counterfeit adds to deflect otherwise what's just the giant
repost of "F you" over, and over, and over, again, exploiting the resources of
a hydra-matic mass-mailer.

With sci.logic plenty bad, then sci.physics.relativity getting an attack started on it today,
I imagine sci.math's next, though as above it's widespread.

Probably first have bit ly cut their links because, you know, abuse,
then advise the authors on Amazon, then they can pull copyright fits.

Something to be said for "return to sender".

Mild Shock

2024-01-24 09:55:39 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
then sci.physics.relativity getting an attack started on it today,

What about all the spam by Rossy Boy over the years.
It started already years ago, when Rossy Boys herpes
blisters started bursting all over the internet.

Mathin3D

2024-01-29 21:59:33 UTC

All of these foe keen pieces of shit spammers and crackpots destroyed a once useful math NG.

Post by Mild Shock

Post by Ross Finlayson
then sci.physics.relativity getting an attack started on it today,

What about all the spam by Rossy Boy over the years.
It started already years ago, when Rossy Boys herpes
blisters started bursting all over the internet.

Ross Finlayson

2024-01-29 03:36:09 UTC

Post by Mathin3D
crackpots like yourself and the foe King spammers had a lot to do with that decision.

Every few years Google refresh their indexes and I fill the first page for foundations.
That and 10,000 more hits. Really there's been times when I was front page of the Internet.
So, they obviously can't have that, ....
Even better then once they trained their AI and it stopped hallucinating
about "spiral space-filling curve" and other phrases in English in mathematics.
I.e. it goes straight to teacher. (Teacher needs to see me after graduate school.)
So, ..., I guess it's sort of true that Google's business model and Usenet's purpose
don't really align.
I'm not a crackpot and the usual spammers are mostly bots.
You express an interest in math if username checks out,
what to you is "not crackpot" yet still interesting and fresh?
I.e. I've never seen anything of mathematical interest from you
so I'm curious where you get off.
Anyways then, for standing up a sort of simplified machinery for
standing up Usenet peerages dynamically, is for the sort of notion
of fungible back-ends, fungible setups and teardowns of infrastructure,
and fungible front-ends. This basically includes some conventions of
the storage formats, of the articles and indices and metadata,
and the articles in various semi-compressed forms for their
delivery very readily, then there are the protocols that are standards
and widely adopted in what your browser already would handle today,
then about how to surface that as with regards to protocols,
like NNTP and IMAP then for HTTP and data formats, how to
make it so that Usenet just carries on, and particularly to help
establish a federated sort of way to surface Usenet articles
by their ID, where don't you know every single post has its own name.
Yeah it's funny, most bibliographic style guides already include Usenet URL's,
URI's, URN's, ....
Wow, it's a modest medium for free expression.

You see, Google's really smart and its algorithms find relevant results.
As to why they provide them for the whole industry you might figure
there's room for competition.
One thing to figure out for, "normal forms for minimal moderation",
basically is to reflect that a given channel has a topic, then with respect
to automatically, how to relate posts or at least something in the thread,
being on-topic, with regards to then how to work up how to have a simplest
form of reputation, pretty much that results a fuzzy logic with repeat posters
and particularly on-topic posters with unique sorts posts, simple approvals or
lack thereof of disapprovals, vis-a-vis reputation systems, and the old maxim
that spams need to be determined in a fair and open sort of way.
I.e. the old maxim is that "a post is spam or not" vis-a-vis "a poster is a spammer or not",
is whether the post relates to other content or the poster relates to other spams.
As well, even un-popular posters, here is for that "there's no negative points",
so that reputation is un-game-able for being one-way.
The simplest resource seems to be time, so the idea is that spam-like behavior
should cost more time, while usual behavior costs less time, to post, or author posts,
while, reading is fundamentally free altogether. (Then for curated and raw,
and only propagating curated, or for curated and raw infeeds and outfeeds,
is for the value of curation and the value of the raw, to read.)
The usual sorts of things like "points" or "teacher's pet's stars", are basically not
having a ranking of authors, instead that it as well would be by the content, what
is to result for uniqueness and, ..., correctness, how to go about figuring out what
are entirely open sorts of metrics, to result engaging in quality of content, and for
various levels, as to whether people seek the engaging, or frivolous. This is more
for bucketing and banding than grinding and gaming.
The Usenet protocol has notions of retention, no-archive, and cancellation,
vis-a-vis "policy", "control", and "junk", and limits, here the notion is essentially
an "unbounded living museum, of text articles".
Then here the idea is to make for "curated" and "raw", in the museum, this
"New/Old/Bot" and "Non/Off/Bad", or "New/Old/Off" and "Non/Bot/Bad",
sort of "curated for digest" and "curated for chat".
There is an idea that people should be able to club together, or vouch,
just not club apart. Then the idea is that bad recommendations would
have to somehow cascade, in terms of there not being the black-ball
nor the private invite, but that the lack thereof of vouching, suffices
to prevent Nons becoming News, in terms of otherwise Nons going to Bads,
as with a timeline and what is the reversibility of Old and Off and Bot and non-Bot,
and not-Bad and Bad, and whether as for the attenuation thereof, or
built-in forgetfulness of Off, then as to whether redress for Bad, or Bot.
The idea is that Nons should go to News as News invest time to get their
first posts published, and go without being rejected as Bad, according to
the related what reflect policy and agnostic content matching, in terms
of that being automatic and as of a strikes policy, vis-a-vis tolerance policies.
I.e. the point is to be both entirely open and also egalitarian, and,
resistant to meddling and gaming, where "gaming" is usually considered
some form of "exploiting", and the usual tragedy of the commons.
As well, it should sort of work unattended, and as after extended times,
a usual case of least maintenance for authors, and, readers.
Luckily, computers are so inexpensive these days, an entire this sort of
thing can run on a quite modest allotment of resources, and with a few
simple architectural principles and a usual sort of giving it away,
make for a pretty nice outlook for an enduring living museum,
of what's called "letters", and a modern-day living, working, museum of letters.
Now I suppose you might open another page and see what Madison Avenue
has deigned to put in your face, these days I see a lot of bandwidth offerings.
There's a pretty detailed work-up of how to implement on "Meta: a usenet server
just for sci.math."
So, how should the front-end work? The basic idea is that it's URLs, then as for populating
front-ends, is sort of for an Explorer sort of metaphor, Browse, vis-a-vis, Search, and Tours,
Exhibits, the metaphor of the museum.
It's pretty simple.

Well, the Google seemingly having abdicated patrolling abuse of its logins,
I'm not sure but wonder to at least collect all these spam logins and send them up.
Probably what happened is one of the trawling-account farms' secret-squirrel
login automations get compromised and Google can't shut down the rest of
its secret-squirrel mechanized fake-ID systems. Or, you know, maybe.
Maybe it's just they scraped accounts, then are faking the posts, "fakemail",
those feeding in from Usenet, with headers fraudulently counterfeited
in terms of mechanisms, of, "message integrity", and "message authentication".
Here it's clearly an _attack_ on the system, nobody buys anything from Usenet
so it's obviously having resources of a mass-mailer being wasted to make a mess.
Of course the gambling bit after the bit ly URL bits, I've never followed one so
I don't know what's behind them, then as far as the eBook bits, they are probably
just scraped and counterfeit adds to deflect otherwise what's just the giant
repost of "F you" over, and over, and over, again, exploiting the resources of
a hydra-matic mass-mailer.
With sci.logic plenty bad, then sci.physics.relativity getting an attack started on it today,
I imagine sci.math's next, though as above it's widespread.
Probably first have bit ly cut their links because, you know, abuse,
then advise the authors on Amazon, then they can pull copyright fits.
Something to be said for "return to sender".

Well, here comes the spam hose around,
I imagine it's just working on making a layer a few pages deep on each group,
perhaps if volunteers posted daily on the wide, wide variety of groups it's polluted,
it would find little sprouts popping up everywhere,
and not quite sure where it's sprinkler-head should turn.

Tsh-tsh-tsh-tsh-tsh-tsh-tsh

So, let us a consider a Usenet campaign, whether to follow on a few posts on
all the Usenet groups, being so polluted, basically providing links to Usenet
sprouting up as in from the spam-casting, the things.

Yeah, if there were posted some helpful general instructions on
all the newsgroups it has polluted, then volunteers I imagine
could help rehabilitate their gardens a bit, and leave the spam-casting
as sort of having missed a few spots, what fundamentally is its undoing.

Ross Finlayson

2024-02-10 06:43:21 UTC

Yeah the spammy end of Google Groups quitting Usenet
is variously setup any time now.

Whether they shut off incoming or outgoing first,
basically has you figure they'll shut off incoming first,
then the groups will fill up with spam, or they'll shut off
about the same time, and maybe there will still be some
posts up to the shut off.

Ross Finlayson

2024-02-19 03:48:44 UTC