Wouldn't it be great to have this group without spam? Is it possible
to have it moderated so that all the spammers get out?
I guess that Google could do something about it. For example, without
having to go to court, it could remove from its search engine all the
references to the pages of the spammers (www.top-saler.com).
Or at least, add some filters so that messages unrelated to the group
are deleted.
It is a pity that such great channel gets corrupted with these
despicable people.
On Apr 4, 11:43 am, proton <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be great to have this group without spam? Is it possible
> to have it moderated so that all the spammers get out?
> I guess that Google could do something about it. For example, without
> having to go to court, it could remove from its search engine all the
> references to the pages of the spammers (www.top-saler.com).
> Or at least, add some filters so that messages unrelated to the group
> are deleted.
> It is a pity that such great channel gets corrupted with these
> despicable people.
It would be interesting to know what has happened. This isn't just
cll, it's most or all newsgroups I read. The fact that google are not
filtering it effectively must, I suppose, mean that they do not care
at all about google groups, which presumably means it will die at some
point (also that the archive will become valueless).
On Apr 4, 2:33 pm, Tim Bradshaw <··········@tfeb.org> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 11:43 am, proton <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be great to have this group without spam? Is it possible
> > to have it moderated so that all the spammers get out?
> > I guess that Google could do something about it. For example, without
> > having to go to court, it could remove from its search engine all the
> > references to the pages of the spammers (www.top-saler.com).
> > Or at least, add some filters so that messages unrelated to the group
> > are deleted.
> > It is a pity that such great channel gets corrupted with these
> > despicable people.
>
> It would be interesting to know what has happened. This isn't just
> cll, it's most or all newsgroups I read. The fact that google are not
> filtering it effectively must, I suppose, mean that they do not care
> at all about google groups, which presumably means it will die at some
> point (also that the archive will become valueless).
I guess (I may be wrong of course) that Google makes a distinction
between Google Groups and Usenet Groups. Google groups may get
filtered, Usenet Groups are not. It woul dbe relatively simple for
Google to add the same machinery they have for GMAIL to detect spam.
In any case, as usual the problem is to get a reliable Usenet news
feed.
Cheers
--
Marco
In article
<····································@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
proton <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be great to have this group without spam? Is it possible
> to have it moderated so that all the spammers get out?
> I guess that Google could do something about it. For example, without
> having to go to court, it could remove from its search engine all the
> references to the pages of the spammers (www.top-saler.com).
> Or at least, add some filters so that messages unrelated to the group
> are deleted.
> It is a pity that such great channel gets corrupted with these
> despicable people.
Get a real news server. My ISP uses Giganews, and I haven't seen any of
the spam you refer to here.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:53:41 -0400, Barry Margolin <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Get a real news server. My ISP uses Giganews, and I haven't seen
> any of the spam you refer to here.
I use a real news server and I've also seen an increase in spam in the
last weeks. I fail to see what this has to do with "real" or not.
Edi.
--
European Common Lisp Meeting, Amsterdam, April 19/20, 2008
http://weitz.de/eclm2008/
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz escribi�:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:53:41 -0400, Barry Margolin <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Get a real news server. My ISP uses Giganews, and I haven't seen
>> any of the spam you refer to here.
>
> I use a real news server and I've also seen an increase in spam in the
> last weeks. I fail to see what this has to do with "real" or not.
>
By the way, I don't understand what a "real" news server is. Is it the
opposite of "fake" or the opposite of "imaginary"?
Leandro
On Apr 5, 7:16 pm, Leandro Rios <··················@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the way, I don't understand what a "real" news server is. Is it the
> opposite of "fake" or the opposite of "imaginary"?
"toy", obviously.
Leandro Rios wrote:
> Edi Weitz escribi�:
>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:53:41 -0400, Barry Margolin
>> <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Get a real news server. My ISP uses Giganews, and I haven't seen
>>> any of the spam you refer to here.
>>
>> I use a real news server and I've also seen an increase in spam in the
>> last weeks. I fail to see what this has to do with "real" or not.
>>
>
> By the way, I don't understand what a "real" news server is. Is it the
> opposite of "fake" or the opposite of "imaginary"?
Its the same as "name brand" versus "store/generic brand".
real news server: one you can subscribe to directly
other news server: a web interface or whatever your ISP provides for free
The real ones tend to have better filtering, more bandwidth, deeper
archives, ... but they all have the same content modulo filtering.
- Daniel
In article <····························@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Barry Margolin <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <····································@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> proton <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be great to have this group without spam? Is it possible
> > to have it moderated so that all the spammers get out?
> > I guess that Google could do something about it. For example, without
> > having to go to court, it could remove from its search engine all the
> > references to the pages of the spammers (www.top-saler.com).
> > Or at least, add some filters so that messages unrelated to the group
> > are deleted.
> > It is a pity that such great channel gets corrupted with these
> > despicable people.
>
> Get a real news server. My ISP uses Giganews, and I haven't seen any of
> the spam you refer to here.
I'm using Giganews directly and I see that spam.
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
> In article <····························@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Barry Margolin <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <····································@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> proton <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Wouldn't it be great to have this group without spam? Is it possible
>> > to have it moderated so that all the spammers get out?
>> > I guess that Google could do something about it. For example, without
>> > having to go to court, it could remove from its search engine all the
>> > references to the pages of the spammers (www.top-saler.com).
>> > Or at least, add some filters so that messages unrelated to the group
>> > are deleted.
>> > It is a pity that such great channel gets corrupted with these
>> > despicable people.
>>
>> Get a real news server. My ISP uses Giganews, and I haven't seen any of
>> the spam you refer to here.
>
> I'm using Giganews directly and I see that spam.
Same here. It seems that Giganews doesn't filter spam at all, or if they
do they are not very good at it.
--
Dimitre Liotev
(format t "~{~a~}" (reverse '("et" "n" "in." "a" "zn" ·@" "l" "d")))
In article <································@giganews.com>,
Dimitre Liotev <·····@email.com> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> writes:
>
> > In article <····························@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Barry Margolin <······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <····································@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> proton <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wouldn't it be great to have this group without spam? Is it possible
> >> > to have it moderated so that all the spammers get out?
> >> > I guess that Google could do something about it. For example, without
> >> > having to go to court, it could remove from its search engine all the
> >> > references to the pages of the spammers (www.top-saler.com).
> >> > Or at least, add some filters so that messages unrelated to the group
> >> > are deleted.
> >> > It is a pity that such great channel gets corrupted with these
> >> > despicable people.
> >>
> >> Get a real news server. My ISP uses Giganews, and I haven't seen any of
> >> the spam you refer to here.
> >
> > I'm using Giganews directly and I see that spam.
>
> Same here. It seems that Giganews doesn't filter spam at all, or if they
> do they are not very good at it.
I also use MT-Newswatcher's built-in spam filtering, so maybe it's been
killing them for me. But I just checked today's killed articles and
don't see anything but a false positive in the DEFUN08 thread.
I sometimes see spam in other groups, but rarely here.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
On Apr 4, 6:43 am, proton <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be great to have this group without spam? Is it possible
> to have it moderated so that all the spammers get out?
> I guess that Google could do something about it. For example, without
> having to go to court, it could remove from its search engine all the
> references to the pages of the spammers (www.top-saler.com).
> Or at least, add some filters so that messages unrelated to the group
> are deleted.
> It is a pity that such great channel gets corrupted with these
> despicable people.
Why look for legal solutions when there are technical solutions?
Maybe they have bandwidth limits?
(loop do
(EXT::RUN-PROGRAM (concatenate 'string
"wget -O /dev/null --referer=\"Keep Off Usenet\"
url )))