Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

[Indira]

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Historical content remains viewable."
<Loading Image...>

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?

[Nigel Reed]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:26:14 +0530

Post by Indira
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Historical content remains viewable."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?

And the dozen or so remaining news admins breathe a sigh of relief.

To answer your question, if I had oodles of disk space to create such a
service, then I would lol. I can't imagine how much you would need to
index it all, but since each article has a unique article-id anyway (or
should) have, it should be easy to generate a unique pointer to a given
message.

[David Goodwin]

Post by Nigel Reed
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:26:14 +0530

Post by Indira
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Historical content remains viewable."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?

And the dozen or so remaining news admins breathe a sigh of relief.
To answer your question, if I had oodles of disk space to create such a
service, then I would lol. I can't imagine how much you would need to
index it all, but since each article has a unique article-id anyway (or
should) have, it should be easy to generate a unique pointer to a given
message.

I think the challenge really would be in tracking down all the old
archives. Disk space requirements don't seem too absurd, but don't know
what sort of resources would be required to build a full text search
index of it all.

There is https://usenetarchives.com/ which at a glance seems to be about
as close as you'll get to being as comprehensive as Google Groups and
their statistics page says they've only got 3.54TB of data.
Unfortunately they don't say where they got it from, and they don't show
everything they have or show headers so its hard to know just how
comprehensive it is or build a replacement should it disappear someday.

I'd guess a fair chunk of whats on usenetarchives.com comes from
https://archive.org/details/usenethistorical (~2.6TB uncompressed) which
*appears* to have come from within Google somehow. So I guess at least
if/when Google decides to stop hosting their usenet archives the stuff
only Deja/Google archived is perhaps preserved elsewhere.

[Indira]

Post by David Goodwin
I think the challenge really would be in tracking down all the old
archives. Disk space requirements don't seem too absurd, but don't know
what sort of resources would be required to build a full text search
index of it all.

Thanks for all those pointers which makes these on the short list.
<http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.peering>
<https://archive.org/details/usenethistorical>
<https://usenetarchives.com/>

Any others?

[immibis]

Post by Nigel Reed
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:26:14 +0530

Post by Indira
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?

And the dozen or so remaining news admins breathe a sigh of relief.
To answer your question, if I had oodles of disk space to create such a
service, then I would lol. I can't imagine how much you would need to
index it all, but since each article has a unique article-id anyway (or
should) have, it should be easy to generate a unique pointer to a given
message.

I'm hearing that non-binary Usenet volume is on the order of megabytes
per day, and some of that is spam you can delete without archiving.
That's on the order of gigabytes per year. I expect that one of my spare
hard drives could hold the entire archive since the beginning of time.

*Binary* Usenet volume might be more like a gigabytes per *minute*. I
looked at a couple providers' peering requirements; they want you to
acquire a 10Gbit or 100Gbit dedicated cross-connect in their data
center. Most providers just resell other providers with a cache layer in
front, because they don't want to deal with the storage requirements.
Internet-based peering is right out.

[Ivo Gandolfo]

-------- Original Message --------
From: immibis <***@immibis.com>
Date: lun, feb 26 2024 02:47:14PM GMT+00:00
Subject: Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or
subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Post by immibis
I'm hearing that non-binary Usenet volume is on the order of megabytes
per day, and some of that is spam you can delete without archiving.
That's on the order of gigabytes per year. I expect that one of my spare
hard drives could hold the entire archive since the beginning of time.

My text-only server moving 1,5/2GB daily. x2 in/out.
My history go back to '90, and I have 8TB of data saved. Now I'm working
to do a webinterface for it due to closing of GG.

Post by immibis
*Binary* Usenet volume might be more like a gigabytes per *minute*. I
looked at a couple providers' peering requirements; they want you to
acquire a 10Gbit or 100Gbit dedicated cross-connect in their data
center. Most providers just resell other providers with a cache layer in
front, because they don't want to deal with the storage requirements.
Internet-based peering is right out.

I have a full-feed, and my bin-server moving 80/100GB daily, x2 in/out.
I'ts manageable for everything, but you need a good storage box to do
more than 1 week history (my storage box it's a 150TB, and I have only 3
month history live for all bin groups).

[immibis]

Post by immibis
*Binary* Usenet volume might be more like a gigabytes per *minute*. I
looked at a couple providers' peering requirements; they want you to
acquire a 10Gbit or 100Gbit dedicated cross-connect in their data
center. Most providers just resell other providers with a cache layer
in front, because they don't want to deal with the storage
requirements. Internet-based peering is right out.

I have a full-feed, and my bin-server moving 80/100GB daily, x2 in/out. > I'ts manageable for everything, but you need a good storage box to do
more than 1 week history (my storage box it's a 150TB, and I have only 3
month history live for all bin groups).

Quite a lot lower than expected. That's only a 100Mbit connection, and
any business with actual money should have no problem acquiring a
petabyte of storage per year (circa $30k/year in new hard drives and
servers). If that's truly a full feed, I wonder why they require direct
peering connections.

[immibis]

Post by Ivo Gandolfo
-------- Original Message --------
Date: lun, feb 26 2024 02:47:14PM GMT+00:00
Subject: Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or
subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Post by immibis
I'm hearing that non-binary Usenet volume is on the order of megabytes
per day, and some of that is spam you can delete without archiving.
That's on the order of gigabytes per year. I expect that one of my
spare hard drives could hold the entire archive since the beginning of
time.

My text-only server moving 1,5/2GB daily. x2 in/out.
My history go back to '90, and I have 8TB of data saved. Now I'm working
to do a webinterface for it due to closing of GG.

Post by immibis
*Binary* Usenet volume might be more like a gigabytes per *minute*. I
looked at a couple providers' peering requirements; they want you to
acquire a 10Gbit or 100Gbit dedicated cross-connect in their data
center. Most providers just resell other providers with a cache layer
in front, because they don't want to deal with the storage
requirements. Internet-based peering is right out.

I have a full-feed, and my bin-server moving 80/100GB daily, x2 in/out.
I'ts manageable for everything, but you need a good storage box to do
more than 1 week history (my storage box it's a 150TB, and I have only 3
month history live for all bin groups).

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.

[Ivo Gandolfo]

-------- Original Message --------
From: immibis <***@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>>

Post by immibis
Here, a Giganews representative says their full binary feed is 20
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.

[immibis]

Post by Ivo Gandolfo
-------- Original Message --------
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>>

Post by immibis
Here, a Giganews representative says their full binary feed is 20
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?

[Ivo Gandolfo]

-------- Original Message --------
From: immibis <***@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

Post by immibis
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.

[immibis]

Post by Ivo Gandolfo
-------- Original Message --------
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

Post by immibis
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.

[Adam W.]

Post by Indira
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?

Polish part of the Usenet has been archived (not by me) at:

https://usenet.nereid.pl/

It's not searchable and not being updated in the real time, but it's
easily downloadable.

If my server (news.chmurka.net) knows an article, you can display it by
entering a Message-ID here:

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

For example:

http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php?mid=ur8tvu$2kvca$***@paganini.bofh.team

[Eric M]

Post by Adam W.
https://usenet.nereid.pl/
It's not searchable and not being updated in the real time, but it's
easily downloadable.
If my server (news.chmurka.net) knows an article, you can display it by
http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php

And we still have :

<http://al.howardknight.net/>

But you need to have the Message-ID too.

[llp]

Post by Adam W.

Post by Indira
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?

https://usenet.nereid.pl/
It's not searchable and not being updated in the real time, but it's
easily downloadable.
If my server (news.chmurka.net) knows an article, you can display it by
http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php

Nice !

An other server to display it by Message-Id here:

http://usenet.ovh/index.php?article=ual

For example:

http://usenet.ovh/index.php?article=ual&msgid=ur8tvu$2kvca$***@paganini.bofh.team

[Indira]

Post by llp

Post by Adam W.
If my server (news.chmurka.net) knows an article, you can display it by
http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php

http://usenet.ovh/index.php?article=ual

While the Message-ID needs to be known, if it's recent, and if the user is
a Usenet cognoscenti, then they can make use of a message-id engine.

Any others other than these three general purpose message-id lookups?
http://al.howardknight.net/
http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php
http://usenet.ovh/index.php?article=ual

[llp]

Post by Indira

Post by llp

Post by Adam W.
If my server (news.chmurka.net) knows an article, you can display it by
http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php

http://usenet.ovh/index.php?article=ual

While the Message-ID needs to be known, if it's recent, and if the user is
a Usenet cognoscenti, then they can make use of a message-id engine.
Any others other than these three general purpose message-id lookups?
http://al.howardknight.net/
http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php
http://usenet.ovh/index.php?article=ual

https://www.novabbs.com/SEARCH/search_nocem.php

A valuable search engine that allows you to find out
if a message is nocemized and to consult the nocem *and* the message.

[Indira]

Post by llp
A valuable search engine that allows you to find out
if a message is nocemized and to consult the nocem *and* the message.

Thank you for that valuable addition of Message-ID searches.
<http://al.howardknight.net/>
<http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php>
<http://usenet.ovh/index.php?article=ual>
<https://www.novabbs.com/SEARCH/search_nocem.php>

Which adds to the list of message generic web-based searches.
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering> deprecated 22Nov24
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com/>
<https://pi-dach.dorfdsl.de/rocksolid/search.php>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.peering>
<https://archive.org/details/usenethistorical>
<https://usenetarchives.com/>

And where the additional search you suggested is specific to "NoCeM"
<Search NoCeM messages for Message-ID>

Of course, I have absolutely no idea what a "no see em" is, so let me look
it up so that I can seem like I knew it all along (which I simply do not).
<https://metager.org/meta/meta.ger3?eingabe=what%20is%20a%20NoCeM%20usenet%20message-id>

Which resulted in the No See Em FAQ:
<http://cm.org/faq.html>

Wow. It's complicated for a mere user. I suspect this is for the admins.
Is it an A2A (admin to admin) way of removing suspected spams?

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Indira
Is it an A2A (admin to admin) way of removing suspected spams?

The basic story is that back in the eighties, there was a mechanism called
a "cancel" which would allow you (or just about anyone else) to send a control
message to every site on the net and have them delete the local copy of your
message. This mechanism got abused, and consequently most sites today do
not accept cancels.

Therefore, when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google,
I think some time around 1995, some admins came up with the idea of the
NoCem which is a cancel message that employs PGP signatures so you can
tell where they come from and admins can make the decision about whether
to accept them or not based upon the reputation of the sender. This is
an advance over conventional cancels which could be forged so you could
not necessarily know who the sender was.

If it were not for the nocem process, Usenet would have become unusable
with spam long ago.

You don't have to be an admin to issue nocems, you just have to have admins
trust you. You can read the messages yourself and use them for a personal
spam filter if you want, but the initial idea was for the news servers to
use them automatically. This is how they are primarily used.
--scott

[Retro Guy]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Indira
Is it an A2A (admin to admin) way of removing suspected spams?

The basic story is that back in the eighties, there was a mechanism called
a "cancel" which would allow you (or just about anyone else) to send a control
message to every site on the net and have them delete the local copy of your
message. This mechanism got abused, and consequently most sites today do
not accept cancels.
Therefore, when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google,
I think some time around 1995, some admins came up with the idea of the
NoCem which is a cancel message that employs PGP signatures so you can
tell where they come from and admins can make the decision about whether
to accept them or not based upon the reputation of the sender. This is
an advance over conventional cancels which could be forged so you could
not necessarily know who the sender was.
If it were not for the nocem process, Usenet would have become unusable
with spam long ago.
You don't have to be an admin to issue nocems, you just have to have admins
trust you. You can read the messages yourself and use them for a personal
spam filter if you want, but the initial idea was for the news servers to
use them automatically. This is how they are primarily used.
--scott

Wow, nice overview of cancel -> nocem :)

NoCeM is what was mainly used to combat the recent Google spam flood (Thai spam, etc.) that just ended two days ago.

Take a look at the stats on that page, and you can see just how many messages were removed daily with a majority of them from google groups:
https://www.novabbs.com/SEARCH/search_nocem.php?stats=daily&msgid=

Take a look at the difference between 22 and 23 Feb, then back in Dec 2023. A lot of spam was caught.

[Indira]

Post by Scott Dorsey
You don't have to be an admin to issue nocems, you just have to have admins
trust you.

Your description was so perfectly written that _it_ should be in the FAQ!

One question, related only to that sentence above (and assuming I had all
the PGP stuff and the admin trust all set up beforehand)...

What _software_ is used to send that "nocem cancel request" to all the
server admins? Is it a simple email? Or a special usenet post. Or what?

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Indira

Post by Scott Dorsey
You don't have to be an admin to issue nocems, you just have to have admins
trust you.

What _software_ is used to send that "nocem cancel request" to all the
server admins? Is it a simple email? Or a special usenet post. Or what?

Just like with the creation of a new group or with a conventional cancel,
a message is posted to the "control" newsgroup, with the issuance of a
nocem a message is posted to the "nocem.misc" newsgroup. You can join
these newsgroups and watch sausage being made if you are interested in
doing so.
--scott

[Retro Guy]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Indira

Post by Scott Dorsey
You don't have to be an admin to issue nocems, you just have to have admins
trust you.

What _software_ is used to send that "nocem cancel request" to all the
server admins? Is it a simple email? Or a special usenet post. Or what?

Just like with the creation of a new group or with a conventional cancel,
a message is posted to the "control" newsgroup, with the issuance of a
nocem a message is posted to the "nocem.misc" newsgroup. You can join
these newsgroups and watch sausage being made if you are interested in
doing so.
--scott

Most nocem are now posted to news.lists.filters

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.

[Adam W.]

Post by Retro Guy
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

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam W.
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.

[Nick Cine]

Post by Scott Dorsey
when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google,
I think some time around 1995

While the moment Google Groups went online there was "some" spam, didn't
the spam problem really multiply in the thousands only recently?

Like only a few months ago?

Almost as if either Google suddenly turned some kind of filter off, or
maybe the spammers suddenly started selling super-efficient ways around the
normal Google spam filters?

[Russ Allbery]

Post by Nick Cine

when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google, I think some
time around 1995

While the moment Google Groups went online there was "some" spam, didn't
the spam problem really multiply in the thousands only recently?

1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at all.
Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired by
Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.

[Gelato]

Post by Russ Allbery
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at all.
Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired by
Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.

What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a login &
password were apparently able to control spammers, so why couldn't Google?

[Russ Allbery]

Post by Gelato

Post by Russ Allbery
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't
acquired by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet
didn't have anything to do with Google.

What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a login
& password were apparently able to control spammers, so why couldn't
Google?

Spam filtering requires ongoing effort since it's adversarial (spammers
adapt), and Google stopped caring about Google Groups years ago. I
suspect the service has been mostly running on autopilot for a while.
It will be interesting to see how well other servers continue to hold up
against spam now that all the spammers will be looking for new injection
points.

[flour]

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Gelato

Post by Russ Allbery
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't
acquired by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet
didn't have anything to do with Google.

What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a
login & password were apparently able to control spammers, so why
couldn't Google?

Spam filtering requires ongoing effort since it's adversarial
(spammers adapt), and Google stopped caring about Google Groups years
ago. I suspect the service has been mostly running on autopilot for a
while.

Nod agreement.

Post by Russ Allbery
It will be interesting to see how well other servers continue to hold
up against spam now that all the spammers will be looking for new
injection points.

Seems google could have easily dealt with the most offensive bunch.

2402:800:61ae:79a9:a880:d836:6245:38d9
2402:800:61ae:3567:ede0:c2a8:5dfd:7c8a
2402:800:61a7:4f07:7192:a97:d907:f1f
2402:800:61a7:4f07:4997:dc42:fc1f:17d7

Viettel Group
inet6num: 2402:800::/32
route6: 2402:800::/32
descr: VIETTEL-VN
origin: AS7552
mnt-by: MAINT-VN-VNNIC

[candycanearter07]

["Followup-To:" header set to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.]

Post by flour

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Gelato

Post by Russ Allbery
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't
acquired by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet
didn't have anything to do with Google.

What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a
login & password were apparently able to control spammers, so why
couldn't Google?

Spam filtering requires ongoing effort since it's adversarial
(spammers adapt), and Google stopped caring about Google Groups years
ago. I suspect the service has been mostly running on autopilot for a
while.

Nod agreement.

Post by Russ Allbery
It will be interesting to see how well other servers continue to hold
up against spam now that all the spammers will be looking for new
injection points.

Seems google could have easily dealt with the most offensive bunch.
2402:800:61ae:79a9:a880:d836:6245:38d9
2402:800:61ae:3567:ede0:c2a8:5dfd:7c8a
2402:800:61a7:4f07:7192:a97:d907:f1f
2402:800:61a7:4f07:4997:dc42:fc1f:17d7
Viettel Group
inet6num: 2402:800::/32
route6: 2402:800::/32
descr: VIETTEL-VN
origin: AS7552
mnt-by: MAINT-VN-VNNIC

Well, at least other server admins now know.

[Dutch Spammer]

Post by Russ Allbery
all the spammers will be looking for new injection
points.

I doubt it. They will move to other forum based support sites. They have
no interest in newsgroups operated by other hobbyists and enthusiasts.
In fact I doubt career spammers knew about newsgroup

[former spammer]

Post by Dutch Spammer

Post by Russ Allbery
all the spammers will be looking for new injection
points.

I doubt it. They will move to other forum based support sites. They have
no interest in newsgroups operated by other hobbyists and enthusiasts.
In fact I doubt career spammers knew about newsgroup

Too much work with too little reward to spam forums.

We most certainly knew. Where did you think we got all the valid email
addresses back then?

[Bill Powell]

Post by Dutch Spammer

Post by Russ Allbery
all the spammers will be looking for new injection
points.

I doubt it. They will move to other forum based support sites. They have
no interest in newsgroups operated by other hobbyists and enthusiasts.
In fact I doubt career spammers knew about newsgroup

There is evidence they only spammed "google groups" (of which USENET was a
portion) since they didn't spam the Windows, Firefox & Thunderbird groups,
which are not archived by the Google Groups mechanism (AFAIAA).

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Gelato

Post by Russ Allbery
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at all.
Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired by
Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.

What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a login &
password were apparently able to control spammers, so why couldn't Google?

Because Google didn't have actual admins as far as I could tell. I know
hundreds of people who have worked for Google and always asked them if they
had ever met anyone working for Google Groups and nobody had. The
groups-***@google.com address seemed to be unmanned. I think the system
was just running perhaps with some occasional upkeep of the software but
without any actual administration. And why they didn't change that is
likely because there wasn't any money in it.
--scott

[D]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Gelato

Post by Russ Allbery
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at all.
Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired by
Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.

What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a login &
password were apparently able to control spammers, so why couldn't Google?

Because Google didn't have actual admins as far as I could tell. I know
hundreds of people who have worked for Google and always asked them if they
had ever met anyone working for Google Groups and nobody had. The
was just running perhaps with some occasional upkeep of the software but
without any actual administration. And why they didn't change that is
likely because there wasn't any money in it.

my instructor was mr. langley

[Richard Harnden]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Gelato

Post by Russ Allbery
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at all.
Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired by
Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.

What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a login &
password were apparently able to control spammers, so why couldn't Google?

Because Google didn't have actual admins as far as I could tell. I know
hundreds of people who have worked for Google and always asked them if they
had ever met anyone working for Google Groups and nobody had. The

Emails to ***@googlegroups.com bounced with something like 'this group
doesn't exist, but if you'd like to create it ...'.

I think the system

Post by Scott Dorsey
was just running perhaps with some occasional upkeep of the software but
without any actual administration.

This is Google's SRE in action. You automate away any and all human
involvement - because the enigneer's time is better spent elsewhere. If
the system is stuggling under the load, then automatically spin up extra
ressouces - which, for course, is perfect for serving spam.

And why they didn't change that is

Post by Scott Dorsey
likely because there wasn't any money in it.
--scott

[Grant Taylor]

This is Google's SRE in action.  You automate away any and all human
involvement - because the enigneer's time is better spent elsewhere.

I don't know if it's the SRE or not.

It may very well be management. Google management had a love hate
relationship with system administrators, as in they love to hate system
administrators. Google got rid of system administrators multiple times.
Each time they realized the folly of their action and hired systems
administrators again. It's a pendulum that keeps swinging back and forth.

[Harry S Robins]

Post by Grant Taylor
It may very well be management. Google management had a love hate
relationship with system administrators, as in they love to hate system
administrators. Google got rid of system administrators multiple times.
Each time they realized the folly of their action and hired systems
administrators again. It's a pendulum that keeps swinging back and forth.

I wouldn't blame Google so much as the spammers themselves, where it may
have been a single "spam king" for all we know, where I never understood
what the purpose was since the English-language spam was nearly
incomprehensible.

Is there evidence for it being one small set of spammers software doing
most of the exponential increase in spam that escalated only a few months
prior to Google shutting the whole thing down?

[candycanearter07]

["Followup-To:" header set to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.]

Post by Grant Taylor

This is Google's SRE in action.  You automate away any and all human
involvement - because the enigneer's time is better spent elsewhere.

I don't know if it's the SRE or not.
It may very well be management. Google management had a love hate
relationship with system administrators, as in they love to hate system
administrators. Google got rid of system administrators multiple times.
Each time they realized the folly of their action and hired systems
administrators again. It's a pendulum that keeps swinging back and forth.

Huh, I never heard of that. When did that happen?

[Jan K.]

Post by candycanearter07
I never heard of that. When did that happen?

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.

That's why we need Grant around.
And that's why we need the peering folks too.

They know more than we regular folk do.

I'm just happy the spam is gone.
But I'm sad the easy to use search engine is also gone with it.

But at least I can take solace in that the spammers themselves wasted their
money for only three months (or so) of having free reign over all of us.

[candycanearter07]

["Followup-To:" header set to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.]

Post by Jan K.

Post by candycanearter07
I never heard of that. When did that happen?

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.

Oh, cool!

Post by Jan K.
That's why we need Grant around.
And that's why we need the peering folks too.
They know more than we regular folk do.
I'm just happy the spam is gone.
But I'm sad the easy to use search engine is also gone with it.

A couple (well more than a "couple") bad actors ruined it for everyone :(

Post by Jan K.
But at least I can take solace in that the spammers themselves wasted their
money for only three months (or so) of having free reign over all of us.

Cheers!

[Jan K.]

Post by candycanearter07

Post by Jan K.
But I'm sad the easy to use search engine is also gone with it.

A couple (well more than a "couple") bad actors ruined it for everyone :(

I'm not so sure. Since most of the spam looked similar (to me, anyway, with
my untrained eye, & even with my other eye adding binocular disparity).

It probably wasn't a zillion people who finally figured out that Google
wasn't checking for spam so much as one clever company who expended the
appreciable amount money to figure out how to repeatedly and endlessly
trick Google filters into thinking they weren't doing what they were.

I don't know how, since you needed a login/password account at Google to
spam, but I'm sure Google didn't give up without a fight - which they lost.

[candycanearter07]

Post by Jan K.

Post by candycanearter07

Post by Jan K.
But I'm sad the easy to use search engine is also gone with it.

A couple (well more than a "couple") bad actors ruined it for everyone :(

I'm not so sure. Since most of the spam looked similar (to me, anyway, with
my untrained eye, & even with my other eye adding binocular disparity).
It probably wasn't a zillion people who finally figured out that Google
wasn't checking for spam so much as one clever company who expended the
appreciable amount money to figure out how to repeatedly and endlessly
trick Google filters into thinking they weren't doing what they were.
I don't know how, since you needed a login/password account at Google to
spam, but I'm sure Google didn't give up without a fight - which they lost.

I was more talking about how some people ruined a good thing for
everyone else instead of the actual numbers

[immibis]

Post by candycanearter07
["Followup-To:" header set to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.]

Post by Jan K.

Post by candycanearter07
I never heard of that. When did that happen?

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.

Oh, cool!

Post by Jan K.
That's why we need Grant around.
And that's why we need the peering folks too.

Anyone can become a "peering folk" btw (but not with Google).

Post by candycanearter07

Post by Jan K.
They know more than we regular folk do.
I'm just happy the spam is gone.
But I'm sad the easy to use search engine is also gone with it.

A couple (well more than a "couple") bad actors ruined it for everyone :(

No, all of us ruined everything by not making it good. Things are bad by
default. It takes effort to make them good.

[Grant Taylor]

Post by Jan K.
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 Taylor]

Post by candycanearter07
Huh, I never heard of that. When did that happen?

Multiple times. I don't have dates.

[Peter Burns]

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Nick Cine

when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google, I think
some time around 1995

While the moment Google Groups went online there was "some" spam,
didn't the spam problem really multiply in the thousands only
recently?

1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't
acquired by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet
didn't have anything to do with Google.

The original ASIAN spam problems on Usenet.
The CURRENT SOUTHEAST ASIAN spam problems in google groups / Usenet.

No point in being PC about it.

[Russ Allbery]

Post by Peter Burns

Post by Russ Allbery
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired
by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.

The original ASIAN spam problems on Usenet.

Nonsense. Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel were American. Some of us
were there at the time and remember perfectly well what it was like.

[John]

Post by Peter Burns

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Nick Cine

when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google, I think
some time around 1995

While the moment Google Groups went online there was "some" spam,
didn't the spam problem really multiply in the thousands only
recently?

1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't
acquired by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet
didn't have anything to do with Google.

The original ASIAN spam problems on Usenet.
The CURRENT SOUTHEAST ASIAN spam problems in google groups / Usenet.
No point in being PC about it.

Oh man, you've really cleared things up by specifying the languages used
and (theoretically) nationalities of the spammers involved. This
definitely casts the whole situation in a brand new light, now that we
have all that PC obfuscation out of the way.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by John
Oh man, you've really cleared things up by specifying the languages used
and (theoretically) nationalities of the spammers involved. This
definitely casts the whole situation in a brand new light, now that we
have all that PC obfuscation out of the way.

Hint: the languages identify the customers of the spammer but not necessarily
the spammer himself. Since we have one spammer who is posting messages in
a wide variety of languages including English, Thai, Hindi, and Bhasa
Indonesia, knowing the language does not tell you much about who is running
the spam itself, only the people who have hired him.
--scott

[david]

Post by Scott Dorsey
uages identify the customers of the spammer but not necessarily
the spammer himself. Since we have one spammer who is posting messages in
a wide variety of languages including English, Thai, Hindi, and Bhasa
Indonesia, knowing the language does not tell you much about who is running
the spam itself, only the people who have hired him.

Has anyone figured out what exactly the payload was of the immense new spam
that flooded the text newsgroups in the past few months at the rate of tens
of thousands of spams per day?

Most of what they spammed made no sense to anyone.

What was their profit motive given an effort to spam 30K per day for
months?

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Nick Cine

when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google, I think some
time around 1995

While the moment Google Groups went online there was "some" spam, didn't
the spam problem really multiply in the thousands only recently?

1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at all.
Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't acquired by
Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet didn't have
anything to do with Google.

No, it was due to the green card lawyers on April 12 of 1994, a day that
will live in infamy.

But the level of spam they produced was ludicrously low by modern standards.

Note that cancels weren't intended to deal with spam, but to deal with
accidental posts or posts that needed re-editing. When the green card
spam came out, there was a lot of discussion about the cancel process.
--scott

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Nick Cine

Post by Scott Dorsey
when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google,
I think some time around 1995

While the moment Google Groups went online there was "some" spam, didn't
the spam problem really multiply in the thousands only recently?
Like only a few months ago?

Yes, in the last six months, a group of one or two users increased the spam
volume more than 10,000 times.

Post by Nick Cine
Almost as if either Google suddenly turned some kind of filter off, or
maybe the spammers suddenly started selling super-efficient ways around the
normal Google spam filters?

If it had been the result of a change Google made, I would think that more
than one or two spammers would be piling on it and the degree of spam would
have increased far more than it did.
--scott

[noel]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Yes, in the last six months, a group of one or two users increased the
spam volume more than 10,000 times.

Last month, spam rejects here averaged about thirty thousand a day, for
past several days since google pulled the plug, spam rejects now average
only nine hundred a day.

(we outright blocked googlegroups a long time ago, so the 30K value will
likely contain legitimate poster collateral damage, but I doubt that
number would be in the thousands)


googlegroups GONE


googlecloud needs to be next (although google does at least keep their
customer IP ranges separate to their core business making it easier to
block everything but p25 from them - unlike microsoft who dont care, and
if they dont we don't, we warn our hosts they likely wont end up in
bing's search because of that)

Of course G's cloud is nowhere near as bad as digitalsewer or ovh.
There is no real valid reason for a customers general cloud account to
access other web servers content, only script kiddies have that reason.


lastly gmail needs to go or stop anonymyzing senders to make them more
accountable - granted, that will only catch out the casual arseholes, the
professional parasites will still find a way, of course still traceable,
but much harder to get co-operaion through the chain.

[Andrew]

Post by Indira
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>

Notice it doesn't say historical content will remain 'searchable.'
https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Online-Troubleshooting-HOWTO/usenet.html

Let's hope there are archives out there of the past & future content.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pky7km/usenet-archive-utzoo-online

But all the tutorials have to be re-written to remove GG from them.
https://www.harley.com/usenet/usenet-tutorial/finding-what-you-want-on-usenet.html

[candycanearter07]

["Followup-To:" header set to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.]

Post by Andrew

Post by Indira
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>

Notice it doesn't say historical content will remain 'searchable.'
https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Online-Troubleshooting-HOWTO/usenet.html
Let's hope there are archives out there of the past & future content.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pky7km/usenet-archive-utzoo-online
But all the tutorials have to be re-written to remove GG from them.
https://www.harley.com/usenet/usenet-tutorial/finding-what-you-want-on-usenet.html

That does seem really worrying.

[Enrico Papaloma]

Post by candycanearter07

Post by Andrew
Notice it doesn't say historical content will remain 'searchable.'
https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Online-Troubleshooting-HOWTO/usenet.html

That does seem really worrying.

The Google Groups announcement doesn't say anything about the search engine
remaining, but I would think it's low maintenance on their part to keep it.

What's needed is a search engine that does two things.
(1) It adds all new Usenet articles
(2) It searches the existing Google search engine after that

With that, there would be two sections of the search engine results.
(1) Present
(2) Past

Dunno if anyone is writing that new Usenet-only search engine though.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Andrew

Post by Indira
<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."

[immibis]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Andrew

  <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.

[Wolf Greenblatt]

Post by immibis
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.

[Nomen Nescio]

Post by Wolf Greenblatt

Post by immibis
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.

[R Daneel Olivaw]

Post by Nomen Nescio

Post by Wolf Greenblatt

Post by immibis
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 Doctor]

Post by R Daneel Olivaw

Post by Nomen Nescio

Post by Wolf Greenblatt

Post by immibis
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!

[Dutch Spammer]

Post by Wolf Greenblatt
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!!!!.

[David Goodwin]

In article <urtvta$nfs5$***@paganini.bofh.team>, ***@dutch.spammer
says...

Post by Dutch Spammer

Post by Wolf Greenblatt
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.

Post by Dutch Spammer
We now have Maori server to replace GoogleGroups sewer!!!!.

Maori server?

[Wolf Greenblatt]

Post by Indira
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.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Wolf Greenblatt
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

[Passing by]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Wolf Greenblatt
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.

[Andy Burns]

Post by immibis

Post by Andy Burns
"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.

[R Daneel Olivaw]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by immibis

Post by Andy Burns
"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?

[D]

Post by R Daneel Olivaw

Post by Andy Burns

Post by immibis

Post by Andy Burns
"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)

[f***@gallaxial.com]

Good, Less Crappy Post

Post by Indira
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
-