Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content

[Bring Back Jason Todd]

"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.

Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups (at
groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to Usenet groups,
or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view and search for historical
Usenet content posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups.

In addition, Google’s Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) server and associated
peering will no longer be available, meaning Google will not support serving new
Usenet content or exchanging content with other NNTP servers.

This change will not impact any non-Usenet content on Google Groups, including
all user and organization-created groups. Most of the current Google Groups
content is not Usenet content and will not be affected.

Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?

Over the last several years, legitimate activity in text-based Usenet groups has
declined significantly because users have moved to more modern technologies and
formats such as social media and web-based forums. 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."

https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet

My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the least) in order
to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.

[Nigel Reed]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
"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.
Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups
(at groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to
Usenet groups, or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view
and search for historical Usenet content posted before February 22,
2024 on Google Groups.
In addition, Google_s Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) server
and associated peering will no longer be available, meaning Google
will not support serving new Usenet content or exchanging content
with other NNTP servers.
This change will not impact any non-Usenet content on Google Groups,
including all user and organization-created groups. Most of the
current Google Groups content is not Usenet content and will not be
affected.
Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
Over the last several years, legitimate activity in text-based Usenet
groups has declined significantly because users have moved to more
modern technologies and formats such as social media and web-based
forums. 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."
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the
least) in order to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.

"sorry to see them go", said no usenet admin.

[The Doctor]

Post by Nigel Reed
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
"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.
Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups
(at groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to
Usenet groups, or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view
and search for historical Usenet content posted before February 22,
2024 on Google Groups.
In addition, Google_s Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) server
and associated peering will no longer be available, meaning Google
will not support serving new Usenet content or exchanging content
with other NNTP servers.
This change will not impact any non-Usenet content on Google Groups,
including all user and organization-created groups. Most of the
current Google Groups content is not Usenet content and will not be
affected.
Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
Over the last several years, legitimate activity in text-based Usenet
groups has declined significantly because users have moved to more
modern technologies and formats such as social media and web-based
forums. 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."
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the
least) in order to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.

"sorry to see them go", said no usenet admin.

HEAR!! HEAR!!!

Post by Nigel Reed
--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23

[Julieta Shem]

Post by Nigel Reed
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support
new Usenet content.

[...]

Post by Nigel Reed
"sorry to see them go", said no usenet admin.

Lol!

[The Doctor]

Post by Nigel Reed
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support
new Usenet content.

[...]

Post by Nigel Reed
"sorry to see them go", said no usenet admin.

Lol!

;-)

[The Doctor]

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
"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.
Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups (at
groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to Usenet groups,
or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view and search for historical
Usenet content posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups.
In addition, Google’s Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) server and associated
peering will no longer be available, meaning Google will not support serving new
Usenet content or exchanging content with other NNTP servers.
This change will not impact any non-Usenet content on Google Groups, including
all user and organization-created groups. Most of the current Google Groups
content is not Usenet content and will not be affected.
Why is Google Groups support for Usenet ending?
Over the last several years, legitimate activity in text-based Usenet groups has
declined significantly because users have moved to more modern
technologies and
formats such as social media and web-based forums. 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."
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the least) in order
to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.

My reaction

This banner is on Google GRoups

Effective from 15 February 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.

Google should pay US$1 000 000 000 000 to every
top1000 listed NNTP server for their abuse they inflicted on
Usenet Servers!

Looks like incompentence on Google's side automation included!

[Spiros Bousbouras]

[ Crossposting to news.admin.peering , it seems relevant enough. ]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
"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.

[...]

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet

Well , we knew it was coming. I have mixed feelings about it. I discovered
usenet through googlegroups and for my first few years on usenet I was
posting and reading through googlegroups so I'm not going to express
unreserved joy. It's also a concern whether usenet will be able to get new
(and young) users. But with the way things have been , it's for the best.
Many newsservers which have become unusable (on some groups) because they
don't filter any of the spam , will become usable again.

Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a
warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do something to warn
them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist legitimate users
who post through googlegroups.

[Richard Harnden]

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
[ Crossposting to news.admin.peering , it seems relevant enough. ]
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
"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.

[...]

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet

Well , we knew it was coming. I have mixed feelings about it. I discovered
usenet through googlegroups and for my first few years on usenet I was
posting and reading through googlegroups so I'm not going to express
unreserved joy. It's also a concern whether usenet will be able to get new
(and young) users. But with the way things have been , it's for the best.
Many newsservers which have become unusable (on some groups) because they
don't filter any of the spam , will become usable again.
Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a
warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do something to warn
them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist legitimate users
who post through googlegroups.

Yes, there is a blue banner at the top saying:

"
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.
"

And a link to their excuse.

[The Doctor]

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
[ Crossposting to news.admin.peering , it seems relevant enough. ]
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support

new Usenet

Post by Spiros Bousbouras

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content

from Usenet

Post by Spiros Bousbouras

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will

still be

Post by Spiros Bousbouras

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
supported as it is done today.

[...]

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet

Well , we knew it was coming. I have mixed feelings about it. I discovered
usenet through googlegroups and for my first few years on usenet I was
posting and reading through googlegroups so I'm not going to express
unreserved joy. It's also a concern whether usenet will be able to get new
(and young) users. But with the way things have been , it's for the best.
Many newsservers which have become unusable (on some groups) because they
don't filter any of the spam , will become usable again.
Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a
warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do something to warn
them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist legitimate users
who post through googlegroups.

"
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.
"
And a link to their excuse.

They are covering their incompetence!

[Grant Taylor]

Post by The Doctor
They are covering their incompetence!

No, I've worked with them.

They aren't incompetent.

They are doing what they were told to do by management.

This is a business decision, not related to people's capability.

[The Doctor]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by The Doctor
They are covering their incompetence!

No, I've worked with them.
They aren't incompetent.
They are doing what they were told to do by management.
This is a business decision, not related to people's capability.

Interesting "decision".

Post by Grant Taylor
--
Grant. . . .

[Marc Haber]

Post by The Doctor
They are covering their incompetence!

And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.

Greetings
Marc

[D]

Post by Marc Haber

Post by The Doctor
They are covering their incompetence!

And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.

and yet the schizophrenic would believe that should make perfect sense;
google is a ghost ship that answers to no one, adrift for all eternity

[The Doctor]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:38:33 +0100, Marc Haber

Post by Marc Haber

Post by The Doctor
They are covering their incompetence!

And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.

and yet the schizophrenic would believe that should make perfect sense;
google is a ghost ship that answers to no one, adrift for all eternity

And now floundering!

[D]

Post by The Doctor

Post by D

Post by Marc Haber

Post by The Doctor
They are covering their incompetence!

And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.

and yet the schizophrenic would believe that should make perfect sense;
google is a ghost ship that answers to no one, adrift for all eternity

And now floundering!

scandal loves publicity . . .

befittingly, on Sunday June 18, 2023 before ~13:45 UT/11:15 NDT,
the tiny Titan submersible imploded in deep descent, its debris
field found days later near the bow of its ill-fated namesake...

She'd struck the iceberg about *11:40 PM Local Titanic Time(see
note below) late Sunday night, April 14, 1912, near 49W55 41N47,
albeit the wreck of the Titan (no, not the prophetic novella by
Morgan Robertson published in 1898, but the wreckage discovered
in 1985) was found near 49W56:51,41N43:46 about 2.4 miles b.s.l.

*NOTE this time has been rectified to approximately 3:07 AM GMT
April 15, 1912, based on extensive records, testimony, distress
calls, official inquiries, exhaustive Internet discussions, etc.
Notably, the actual LMT of 49:55W is UT -3:19. So the Titanic's
post-10:00 PM, 47-minute setback clock was only about 8 minutes
slow by the ship's reported time 11:40 PM, GMT -3:27, NYT +1:33,
i.e. relative to GMT, not the calculated midday southing on the
ship's projected course for April 15th, as the IMM/WS's 'Ship's
Rules and Uniform Regulations' handbook (1907 edition) explains.
Other reports suggest the ship's clock was only about 6 minutes
slow therearound, but I leave such discrepancies to the experts.
Considering the projected course, heading, and nextday southing,
7 minutes slow is judicious. But what's one minute more or less?

Morgan Andrew Robertson was born to Andrew & Amelia Glassford-
Robertson at the two-storey frame house(76W31:14,43N27:27)68 W
8th St, Oswego New York on Monday 30 September 1861(AA/HR).

[candycanearter07]

Post by Marc Haber

Post by The Doctor
They are covering their incompetence!

And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.
Greetings
Marc

I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away
from pursuing Usenet.

[The Doctor]

Post by candycanearter07

Post by Marc Haber

Post by The Doctor
They are covering their incompetence!

And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.
Greetings
Marc

I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away
from pursuing Usenet.

WEll less automation and more verification helps.

Post by candycanearter07
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[Ray Banana]

Post by candycanearter07
I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people
away from pursuing Usenet.

Eternal-September's registration page says otherwise.

[DV]

Post by Ray Banana
Eternal-September's registration page says otherwise.

Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as it
appears in your signature. It's OK in https though:

<https://www.eternal-september.org>

[Marco Moock]

Post by DV
Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as

Works for me.

[DV]

Post by Marco Moock
Works for me.

It works if I ask my browser to favor the secure connection (https), but
in this case any http URL will result in an error message.

In my opinion, when an https connection is available, it is better to
add the 's' in the link.

[Marco Moock]

Post by DV

Post by Marco Moock
Works for me.

It works if I ask my browser to favor the secure connection (https),
but in this case any http URL will result in an error message.

It works for me with http and https. I use Pale Moon.

[DV]

Post by Marco Moock

Post by DV
It works if I ask my browser to favor the secure connection (https),
but in this case any http URL will result in an error message.

It works for me with http and https. I use Pale Moon.

The problem occurs in Vivaldi, and probably in other Chrome-based
browsers.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by DV

Post by Marco Moock

Post by DV
It works if I ask my browser to favor the secure connection (https),
but in this case any http URL will result in an error message.

It works for me with http and https. I use Pale Moon.

The problem occurs in Vivaldi, and probably in other Chrome-based
browsers.

What, by default, the browser refuses to load http? That's an incredibly
stupid client.

[Grant Taylor]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
What, by default, the browser refuses to load http? That's an
incredibly stupid client.

No ... it's a byproduct of evolving security on the web for the last
10-15 years.

It used to be assumed that unencrypted HTTP was the default and
encrypted HTTPS was the exception. We're now probably two thirds the
way along the migration to where encrypted HTTPS is assumed the default
and unencrypted HTTP is the exception.

Some browsers have chosen to make it so that they won't try unencrypted
HTTP without explicitly telling it to like many browsers years ago
wouldn't try encrypted HTTPS without explicitly telling them to.

It's an ongoing change.

[Marco Moock]

Post by Grant Taylor
It used to be assumed that unencrypted HTTP was the default and
encrypted HTTPS was the exception. We're now probably two thirds the
way along the migration to where encrypted HTTPS is assumed the
default and unencrypted HTTP is the exception.

Much more.
Some years ago Google started to rank down sites that only had http, so
almost all webmasters decided to enable https.

Every common browser now displays warning messages when accessing an
http site.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Adam H. Kerman
What, by default, the browser refuses to load http? That's an
incredibly stupid client.

No ... it's a byproduct of evolving security on the web for the last
10-15 years.
It used to be assumed that unencrypted HTTP was the default and
encrypted HTTPS was the exception. We're now probably two thirds the
way along the migration to where encrypted HTTPS is assumed the default
and unencrypted HTTP is the exception.
Some browsers have chosen to make it so that they won't try unencrypted
HTTP without explicitly telling it to like many browsers years ago
wouldn't try encrypted HTTPS without explicitly telling them to.
It's an ongoing change.

Your comment is inapplicable to what the O.P. complained about. The URL
Ray provided was http://www.eternal-september.org so copy and paste into
the browser's address bar is indeed an explicit instruction to use http.

[DV]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
What, by default, the browser refuses to load http? That's an incredibly
stupid client.

I have no problem with most http URLs, but the Eternal-September one
only opens with https.

[llp]

Post by Marco Moock

Post by DV
Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as

Works for me.

Works for me too.

[Sn!pe]

Post by llp

Post by Marco Moock

Post by DV
Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as

Works for me.

Works for me too.

For me, using <http://www.eternal-september.org> with Safari on
macOS 10.13 showed a warning and required the Security Policy to be
overridden. Safari on macOS 14.1 just complained that it can't connect.

<https://www.eternal-september.org> gives no problems on either OS.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by DV

Post by Ray Banana
Eternal-September's registration page says otherwise.

Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as it
<https://www.eternal-september.org>

Like Marco, I confirm that I can reach http://www.eternal-september.org/
which does not redirect to https://www.eternal-september.org/

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 20:17:31 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by DV

Post by Ray Banana
Eternal-September's registration page says otherwise.

Hi Ray, the Eternal-September URL seems to no longer work in http, as it
<https://www.eternal-september.org>

Like Marco, I confirm that I can reach http://www.eternal-september.org/
which does not redirect to https://www.eternal-september.org/

For me www.eternal-september.org resolves to
135.181.20.170 and 2a01:4f9:4b:44c2::2 .For the former wget says
"failed: Connection refused" .I can't connect to the latter either but I
don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
related to eternal-september .So possibly the reason that some people
can connect and some cannot is that the people who cannot have problems
handling IPv6 addresses in general.

[Marco Moock]

I don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
related to eternal-september.

Then check if your system has an IPv6 address (not fe80 or fd00, those
can't be used for internet communication).

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 21:52:33 +0100

Post by Marco Moock

I don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
related to eternal-september.

Then check if your system has an IPv6 address (not fe80 or fd00, those
can't be used for internet communication).

Thanks for the tip. I don't think it has one but I don't want to spend the
time now to investigate further and this isn't the right group. If I can't
figure it out on my own , I will start a thread on comp.os.linux.misc .

[noel]

Post by Marco Moock

I don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
related to eternal-september.

Then check if your system has an IPv6 address (not fe80 or fd00, those
can't be used for internet communication).

This!

IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
routes magically start working when you get your users to disable IPv6.

Also I've found users own over-reaching firewall rules can interfere with
it.

[Marco Moock]

Post by noel
IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
routes magically start working when you get your users to disable IPv6.

The something in the network is broken.

Some small amount of network operators are also too stupid to
understand IPv6 und for example place mapped IPv4 addresses in the AAAA.
Even if people tell them, they are too stupid to fix their fault.

Post by noel
Also I've found users own over-reaching firewall rules can interfere
with it.

Firewall admins must understand IPv6.

I run IPv6 for more than 3 years and it works.

[The Doctor]

Post by Marco Moock

Post by noel
IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
routes magically start working when you get your users to disable IPv6.

The something in the network is broken.
Some small amount of network operators are also too stupid to
understand IPv6 und for example place mapped IPv4 addresses in the AAAA.
Even if people tell them, they are too stupid to fix their fault.

Post by noel
Also I've found users own over-reaching firewall rules can interfere
with it.

Firewall admins must understand IPv6.
I run IPv6 for more than 3 years and it works.

I need to get an IPv6 block myself.

[Marco Moock]

Post by The Doctor
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.

You can get that from your local RIR, but you also need an ISP that is
willing to route that to your home.

[The Doctor]

Post by Marco Moock

Post by The Doctor
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.

You can get that from your local RIR, but you also need an ISP that is
willing to route that to your home.

Just a local RIR in Canada then.

[Grant Taylor]

Post by The Doctor
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.

I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years
before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.

Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
provider and as such block access from them.

There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6
network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address".

I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers. But mostly with
what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.



Grant. . . .

[Marc Haber]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by The Doctor
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.

I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years
before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.
Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
provider and as such block access from them.
There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6
network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address".
I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers. But mostly with
what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.

That happens in the IPv4 world more and more as well. The content
providers have the notion of an "eyeball network" which locks out
things like VPN providers, tunnel providers, people like me who
implement their internet breakout through a rented machine in a
colocation, public Wifi hotspots, enterprise networks...

This is becoming as obnoxioius as spam filters. Internet slowly stops
being fun.

Greetings
Marc

[immibis]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by The Doctor
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.

I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years
before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.
Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
provider and as such block access from them.
There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6
network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address".
I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers.  But mostly with
what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.
Grant. . . .

IPv4 has the same problem. This is nothing to do with IPv6, and
everything to do with capitalism being shit.

As Marc said, they whitelist certain networks as "eyeball networks". If
your IP doesn't happen to belong to such a network, too bad - you're
obviously a scraper, so the site says, fuck off! It's as bad as email
spam filtering.

*Actual* scrapers, of course, can rent SOCKS proxies located on eyeball
networks, in bulk quantities, from a business whose entire business
model is to sell SOCKS proxies on eyeball networks, for about $0.50 a
month per proxy (cheaper in bulk). This is even better access to eyeball
networks than eyeballs like yours or mine have. So you have two
businesses fighting each other, achieving nothing in reality, but
wasting money, and everybody loses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

[D]

Post by immibis

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by The Doctor
I need to get an IPv6 block myself.

I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years
before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.
Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
provider and as such block access from them.
There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6
network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address".
I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers.  But mostly with
what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.
Grant. . . .

IPv4 has the same problem. This is nothing to do with IPv6, and
everything to do with capitalism being shit.
As Marc said, they whitelist certain networks as "eyeball networks". If
your IP doesn't happen to belong to such a network, too bad - you're
obviously a scraper, so the site says, fuck off! It's as bad as email
spam filtering.
*Actual* scrapers, of course, can rent SOCKS proxies located on eyeball
networks, in bulk quantities, from a business whose entire business
model is to sell SOCKS proxies on eyeball networks, for about $0.50 a
month per proxy (cheaper in bulk). This is even better access to eyeball
networks than eyeballs like yours or mine have. So you have two
businesses fighting each other, achieving nothing in reality, but
wasting money, and everybody loses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

in the xmas spirit . . .
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bullshit+jobs
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=eyeball+network

(at least google2news may be laid to rest)

[Grant Taylor]

Post by immibis
This is nothing to do with IPv6,

I find the problem to be multiple orders of magnitude worse on IPv6 than
I do on IPv4.

So I think that it has at least something to do with IPv6 vs IPv4. ;-)

[Marc Haber]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by immibis
This is nothing to do with IPv6,

I find the problem to be multiple orders of magnitude worse on IPv6 than
I do on IPv4.
So I think that it has at least something to do with IPv6 vs IPv4. ;-)

Yes, people think that IPv6 is unimportant so they tune their filters
in much more obnoxious ways than they would dare doing with the
protocol that everybody uses.

Greetings
Marc

[Tom Furie]

Post by Marc Haber
Yes, people think that IPv6 is unimportant so they tune their filters
in much more obnoxious ways than they would dare doing with the
protocol that everybody uses.

Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that they
have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of "stealth", it
would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and still have an
operational network.

[Grant Taylor]

Post by Tom Furie
Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that they
have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of "stealth", it
would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and still have an
operational network.

Neighbor Discovery (think ARP) in IPv6 is uses ICMPv6. So you can't
block it completely and have IPv6 work.

You might be able to prevent forwarding of ICMPv6 between interfaces and
still use it locally.

[Marco Moock]

Post by Tom Furie
Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that
they have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of
"stealth", it would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and
still have an operational network.

That is already a stupid idea with IPv4, because it also uses ICMP
(Typ3 Code 4) fragmentation needed packages to indicate that the PMTU
is smaller. Although, fragmentation by a router is also possible, it is
not mandatory to do it.

[Marc Haber]

Post by Tom Furie

Post by Marc Haber
Yes, people think that IPv6 is unimportant so they tune their filters
in much more obnoxious ways than they would dare doing with the
protocol that everybody uses.

Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that they
have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of "stealth", it
would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and still have an
operational network.

Thankfully blocking ICMPv6 completely renders IPv6 inoperational so
that the problem can be noticed immediately. The problems caused by
blocking ICMPv4 are a LOT more subtle to track down.

Greetings
Marc

[Grant Taylor]

Post by Marco Moock
The something in the network is broken.

I've run into plenty of network breakages in IPv6 that aren't broken in
IPv4.

Remember, the network of interconnected IPv4 devices is completely
different than the network of interconnected IPv6 devices. Even if they
use the same physical link, they are not the same network.

IPv4 could be compared to roads while IPv6 could be compared to rail.
(At least in the U.S.A.) There are far, Far, FAR more IPv4 routes /
miles of roads in than there IPv6 routes / miles of rail. Yes, many of
the same destinations have both IPv4 / road and IPv6 / rail
interconnecting them. However they many, if not likely, take completely
different paths between locations.

Post by Marco Moock
Some small amount of network operators are also too stupid to
understand IPv6 und for example place mapped IPv4 addresses in the AAAA.
Even if people tell them, they are too stupid to fix their fault.

Puttying a raw dotted quad IPv4 address in an AAAA record is bad.
Putting an encoded IPv4 address in an AAAA is perfectly fine. There are
two or three common ways to do this.

Post by Marco Moock
Firewall admins must understand IPv6.

IPv6 firewall admins must understand IPv6.

Not all firewalls handle IPv6 traffic and their admins don't /need/ to
understand IPv6. Though I completely agree that they /should/ have a
basic understanding of IPv6.

Post by Marco Moock
I run IPv6 for more than 3 years and it works.

I've run IPv6 personally and professionally for more than 15 years.

Most of the time IPv6 just works. Some of the times IPv6 breaks in
weird ways that IPv4 doesn't break. Sometimes the river has washed out
the rail bridge and the IPv6 route is broken while road around carries
IPv4 just fine. Two different routes for two different protocols.

There are more subtle IPv6 routing problems than I would expect to have
and it's very disappointing.

Some days I think DNSSEC adoption is going better than IPv6 deployment.

[Marco Moock]

Post by Grant Taylor
Puttying a raw dotted quad IPv4 address in an AAAA record is bad.
Putting an encoded IPv4 address in an AAAA is perfectly fine. There
are two or three common ways to do this.

As long as that address directs to a NAT64 gateway that is reachable
from the internet, that is fine. But some clueless people use
IPv4-mapped addresses in AAAA records and those are not routed, so you
get back an ICMP no route to dst.

See here for that support ticket:
https://forum.newrelic.com/s/hubtopic/aAX8W0000015BUvWAM/bamnrdatanet-resolves-with-wrong-aaaarecords

[Grant Taylor]

Post by Marco Moock
As long as that address directs to a NAT64 gateway that is reachable
from the internet, that is fine. But some clueless people use
IPv4-mapped addresses in AAAA records and those are not routed, so you
get back an ICMP no route to dst.

I wonder if IPv4 would have had a route to the encoded IPv4 address.

Post by Marco Moock
https://forum.newrelic.com/s/hubtopic/aAX8W0000015BUvWAM/bamnrdatanet-resolves-with-wrong-aaaarecords

I'm only part way through it, but it's shaping up to be an interesting read.

[noel]

Post by Marco Moock

Post by noel
IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
routes magically start working when you get your users to disable IPv6.

The something in the network is broken.
Some small amount of network operators are also too stupid to understand
IPv6 und for example place mapped IPv4 addresses in the AAAA.
Even if people tell them, they are too stupid to fix their fault.

Yep

Post by Marco Moock

Post by noel
Also I've found users own over-reaching firewall rules can interfere
with it.

Firewall admins must understand IPv6.
I run IPv6 for more than 3 years and it works.

I've run it since anout 2010/11 or there abouts and yes, its simple
enough but requires more than just unfettered localhost

[Ray Banana]

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
For me www.eternal-september.org resolves to
135.181.20.170 and 2a01:4f9:4b:44c2::2 .For the former wget says
"failed: Connection refused" .I can't connect to the latter either but I
don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
related to eternal-september .So possibly the reason that some people
can connect and some cannot is that the people who cannot have problems
handling IPv6 addresses in general.

Thank you for a meaningful and helpful error report. Fixed.

[DV]

Post by Ray Banana
Thank you for a meaningful and helpful error report. Fixed.

No more error in my browser. Thank you too!

[Sn!pe]

Post by DV

Post by Ray Banana
Thank you for a meaningful and helpful error report. Fixed.

No more error in my browser. Thank you too!

Ditto, thanks.

[Wally J]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Like Marco, I confirm that I can reach http://www.eternal-september.org/
which does not redirect to https://www.eternal-september.org/

I too can reach both on a slightly hardened (for privacy) web browser.
<http://www.eternal-september.org/>
<https://www.eternal-september.org/>

BTW, I love Ivo & Ray for what they do, but I need _both_ because paganini
is such a pita when it comes to posting more than a few times in a day.

About half the time bofh fails such that I have to flip over to Ray's
server. I thank them both where Ivo's server is completely different in how
it deals with more than a small handful of posts per day per IP address.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by candycanearter07

Post by Marc Haber
And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.

I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away
from pursuing Usenet.

Somehow Usenet will survive without the people who refuse to try Usenet
due to believing Google's lies.

[candycanearter07]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by candycanearter07

Post by Marc Haber
And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.

I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people away
from pursuing Usenet.

Somehow Usenet will survive without the people who refuse to try Usenet
due to believing Google's lies.

Yes, but it could still have SOME impact on new users.

[Nigel Reed]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:43:52 -0600

Post by candycanearter07

Post by Marc Haber

Post by The Doctor
They are covering their incompetence!

And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being
the ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on
others while being on their own way out.
Greetings
Marc

I am a bit worried that their statement could end up turning people
away from pursuing Usenet.

We need to reach out to those legitimate users that are using Google
Groups and offer them alternative access.

[Wally J]

Post by Nigel Reed
We need to reach out to those legitimate users that are using Google
Groups and offer them alternative access.

The good news is there are a plethora of free news servers they can employ.
<http://groups.google.com/g/alt.free.newsservers>
<https://alt.free.newsservers.narkive.com>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=alt.free.newsservers>

[The Doctor]

Post by Marc Haber

Post by The Doctor
They are covering their incompetence!

And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.

So shutting spammers down might not be a google priority.

Post by Marc Haber
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

[candycanearter07]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Marc Haber

Post by The Doctor
They are covering their incompetence!

And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.

So shutting spammers down might not be a google priority.

Why would you think Google cares?

[The Doctor]

Post by candycanearter07

Post by The Doctor

Post by Marc Haber

Post by The Doctor
They are covering their incompetence!

And they even say one of the reasons is spam, while they're being the
ONE BIGGEST source of Usenet spam. Blame their own doing on others
while being on their own way out.

So shutting spammers down might not be a google priority.

Why would you think Google cares?

Hence incompetence.

Post by candycanearter07
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[Ray Banana]

Post by The Doctor

Post by candycanearter07
Why would you think Google cares?

Hence incompetence.

Google's Razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be
adequately explained by malice.

[The Doctor]

Post by Ray Banana

Post by The Doctor

Post by candycanearter07
Why would you think Google cares?

Hence incompetence.

Google's Razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be
adequately explained by malice.

Good point!

Post by Ray Banana
--
Пу́тіМ — хуйлП́
http://www.eternal-september.org

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Ray Banana

Post by The Doctor

Post by candycanearter07
Why would you think Google cares?

Hence incompetence.

Google's Razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be
adequately explained by malice.

Hahahahahahahaha

[Grant Taylor]

Post by The Doctor
Hence incompetence.

Lack of caring and incompetence are two very different things.

[The Doctor]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by The Doctor
Hence incompetence.

Lack of caring and incompetence are two very different things.

And then you have politicians.

Post by Grant Taylor
--
Grant. . . .

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 01:27:55 +0000
[...]

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a
warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do something to warn
them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist legitimate users
who post through googlegroups.

"
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.
"
And a link to their excuse.

At least they're doing something right.

[The Doctor]

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 01:27:55 +0000
[...]

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a
warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do

something to warn

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist

legitimate users

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
who post through googlegroups.

"
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.
"
And a link to their excuse.

At least they're doing something right.

And stick with it!

[The Doctor]

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
[ Crossposting to news.admin.peering , it seems relevant enough. ]
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:27:12 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support

new Usenet

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content

from Usenet

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will

still be

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
supported as it is done today.

[...]

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet

Well , we knew it was coming. I have mixed feelings about it. I discovered
usenet through googlegroups and for my first few years on usenet I was
posting and reading through googlegroups so I'm not going to express
unreserved joy. It's also a concern whether usenet will be able to get new
(and young) users. But with the way things have been , it's for the best.
Many newsservers which have become unusable (on some groups) because they
don't filter any of the spam , will become usable again.
Does anyone know if users who read and post through googlegroups get a
warning about what's coming ? Because if not , we should do something to warn
them. As has been pointed out several times , there do exist legitimate users
who post through googlegroups.

This is what you get when you cannot control spamtrollers!

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
--
"A great disturbance in the internets. It was like a million hentai lovers
voices crying out in unison, then suddenly silenced."
"automatedresponse"
www.reddit.com/r/promos/comments/6mtzb/time_warner_cable_to_block_all_usenet_access

[Grant Taylor]

Post by The Doctor
This is what you get when you cannot control spamtrollers!

I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
them to.

I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in
preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
did recently.

Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement
wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
the spam was no longer detected and prevented.

An Oops, followed by "let's see if anyone notices" and "oh ... they
noticed, shut it off" seems very likely.

[Wally J]

Post by Grant Taylor
I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
them to.
I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in
preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
did recently.
Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement
wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
the spam was no longer detected and prevented.
An Oops, followed by "let's see if anyone notices" and "oh ... they
noticed, shut it off" seems very likely.

Agree on everything stated above.
a. Management nixed it
b. Their may have been a recent event (an expired contract perhaps)
c. Spam found a way through the hole it left as a result
d. When the shit hit the fan, they decided to give up on dejagoogle

Their excuse is completely bogus though, but at least they didn't pull the
pedophile child-porn crap that AT&T used as their excuse years ago when
they pulled the plug on Usenet (well before the sex offender Baby Cuomo's
political shenanigans became common public knowledge).

Anyway, the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?, some?)
newsgroups is the narkive - but it really sucks in my humble opinion.

<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com

I would like to ask others to check it out as I've never been successful
with it; but maybe it's just the privacy stuff I have on my browsers?

[Grant Taylor]

Post by Wally J
Their excuse is completely bogus though,

No, it's not. It's not an excuse either. It's a reason. The reason
can be shortened to the last word.

They just fail to tell the whole truth -- that the vast majority of the
spam was originating from them -- and nothing but the truth -- the rest
of the fluff that they padded their statement with.

The fact that they are not discontinuing Google Groups supports that
people still use (news)groups to communicate. So any comment about
newer social media is a lie.

But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
"spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.

This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
times before.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:47:21 -0600

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Wally J
Their excuse is completely bogus though,

No, it's not. It's not an excuse either. It's a reason. The reason
can be shortened to the last word.
They just fail to tell the whole truth -- that the vast majority of the
spam was originating from them -- and nothing but the truth -- the rest
of the fluff that they padded their statement with.
The fact that they are not discontinuing Google Groups supports that
people still use (news)groups to communicate. So any comment about
newer social media is a lie.
But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
"spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.

The relevant part of the statement (from
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet) is

Over the last several years, legitimate activity in text-based Usenet
groups has declined significantly because users have moved to more modern
technologies and formats such as social media and web-based forums. 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.

It clearly refers to usenet not the <message board like> private
googlegroups. In fact the "web-based forums" does include the private
googlegroups as a special case so that part of the statement seems perfectly
truthful to me. In fact I appreciate its neutrality ; it doesn't claim that
the newer media are better than usenet but simply that they are more modern
(which I interpret as "more recently created") and that many people have moved
to them. 100% correct.

Regarding spam , a more complete statement might have been

Most of the usenet spam gets posted through googlegroups. If Google devoted
enough resources to it , we could have filtered that spam but , given the
reduced participation of legitimate users on usenet , we decided not to
expend those resources , especially considering that fighting spam is a
never ending arms race with the spammers.

Such a statement would be more complete but I wouldn't regard it as more
truthful.

Post by Grant Taylor
This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
times before.

[Wally J]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Wally J
Their excuse is completely bogus though,

No, it's not. It's not an excuse either. It's a reason. The reason
can be shortened to the last word.

Hmmm... well... ah... um... er... ok. I don't disagree with you as I never
disagree with anyone (no matter who it is) who says something reasonable.

Post by Grant Taylor
They just fail to tell the whole truth -- that the vast majority of the
spam was originating from them -- and nothing but the truth -- the rest
of the fluff that they padded their statement with.

OK. Again. I can't disagree. I never disagree with a fact.
Only fools do that. (That's why they're fools after all.)

Post by Grant Taylor
The fact that they are not discontinuing Google Groups supports that
people still use (news)groups to communicate. So any comment about
newer social media is a lie.

The part about social media is what got me on flaming Baby Cuomo's assault
on the binary Usenet newsgroups - where he "conveniently forgot" that
almost all of us post on the text-only newsgroups which have no porn.

What irked me was AT&T (who was my cable supplier at that time) dropped
Usenet piggybacking on Cuomo's lies - which was an introduction to lies^2.

Post by Grant Taylor
But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
"spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.

Heh heh heh... yeah. The spam was originating from Google after all. :)

What still tells me there's more to the story than we know is that it's
trivial (IMHO) for Google to filter out the spam originating from their
servers.

Even I could do that. And I don't know a damn thing about Google's servers.
What's so hard about filtering their own users' Google-Groups-Usenet posts
when they do effective filtering with their email servers already?

Something very critical is missing from the information we're faced with.

Post by Grant Taylor
This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
times before.

I worked for a decade alongside two of the smartest people in the world who
ended up working for Google on their search engine team, where even They
were impressed with how sophisticated the "normal" Google search was.

If you know them, I'll say their initials, where both worked in the Silicon
Valley with me, one of whom is D.G. and the other B.A. if you know them.

Also W.T. worked at Google who has argued with me many times that they're
not stupid (just like you argue here) but that they're told what to code.

[candycanearter07]

Post by Wally J

Post by Grant Taylor
But, Google did admit why they were discontinuing support for Usenet;
"spam". They were just a little bit shy on other necessary details.

Heh heh heh... yeah. The spam was originating from Google after all. :)
What still tells me there's more to the story than we know is that it's
trivial (IMHO) for Google to filter out the spam originating from their
servers.
Even I could do that. And I don't know a damn thing about Google's servers.
What's so hard about filtering their own users' Google-Groups-Usenet posts
when they do effective filtering with their email servers already?
Something very critical is missing from the information we're faced with.

Post by Grant Taylor
This perfectly matches things that I've experienced with them multiple
times before.

I worked for a decade alongside two of the smartest people in the world who
ended up working for Google on their search engine team, where even They
were impressed with how sophisticated the "normal" Google search was.
If you know them, I'll say their initials, where both worked in the Silicon
Valley with me, one of whom is D.G. and the other B.A. if you know them.
Also W.T. worked at Google who has argued with me many times that they're
not stupid (just like you argue here) but that they're told what to code.

My guess is either they were looking for an excuse to shut down the
service (maybe to save server space?), throwing a bone to get us to stop
complaining, or they legitimately forgot about the gateway.

[Grant Taylor]

Post by candycanearter07
My guess is either they were looking for an excuse to shut down the
service (maybe to save server space?),

Maybe.

Though Google has not needed an excuse to do things in the past. Quite
the contrary, they do things that have upset people to the point of an
anti-excuse / reason to keep things.

Post by candycanearter07
throwing a bone to get us to stop complaining,

I doubt that.

Post by candycanearter07
or they legitimately forgot about the gateway.

I highly doubt it.

I saw hints of them pondering shutting down the Google Groups Usenet
gateway around when the new Mozilla Firefox / Thunderbird and Windows 11
newsgroups became a thing.

The shutdown has been coming.

The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

[The Doctor]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by candycanearter07
My guess is either they were looking for an excuse to shut down the
service (maybe to save server space?),

Maybe.
Though Google has not needed an excuse to do things in the past. Quite
the contrary, they do things that have upset people to the point of an
anti-excuse / reason to keep things.

Post by candycanearter07
throwing a bone to get us to stop complaining,

I doubt that.

Post by candycanearter07
or they legitimately forgot about the gateway.

I highly doubt it.
I saw hints of them pondering shutting down the Google Groups Usenet
gateway around when the new Mozilla Firefox / Thunderbird and Windows 11
newsgroups became a thing.
The shutdown has been coming.
The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

After a year's worth of complaints ...

Post by Grant Taylor
--
Grant. . . .

[Blueshirt]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Grant Taylor
The shutdown has been coming.
The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

After a year's worth of complaints ...

Just a year?!

The Google Groups spamflood of Usenet might have become a bigger
issue in recent months but people have been complaining about Google
Groups and the people who use it to post to Usenet for years.

Blinky the Shark might be gone but I'm sure Lee is up there smiling
somewhere...

[Wally J]

Post by Grant Taylor
The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

I have no evidence of this circumstantial claim based on timing alone, but
I suspect maybe Google killed 'something' in preparation for this shutdown,
which is what allowed all the google-based spam to suddenly flood the ngs.

What that 'something' might have possibly been, I cannot hope to say -
other than it may have been what opened the previously-closed floodgates.

As such, it may have been the prelude that we saw in the past few weeks...

[Adam H. Kerman]

I'm cutting the crosspost.

Post by Wally J

Post by Grant Taylor
The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

I have no evidence of this circumstantial claim based on timing alone, but
I suspect maybe Google killed 'something' in preparation for this shutdown,
which is what allowed all the google-based spam to suddenly flood the ngs.

Why would you believe that?

Post by Wally J
What that 'something' might have possibly been, I cannot hope to say -
other than it may have been what opened the previously-closed floodgates.
As such, it may have been the prelude that we saw in the past few weeks...

Google has never counteracted spam.

[Sn!pe]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'm cutting the crosspost.

Post by Wally J

Post by Grant Taylor
The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

I have no evidence of this circumstantial claim based on timing alone, but
I suspect maybe Google killed 'something' in preparation for this shutdown,
which is what allowed all the google-based spam to suddenly flood the ngs.

Why would you believe that?

Post by Wally J
What that 'something' might have possibly been, I cannot hope to say -
other than it may have been what opened the previously-closed floodgates.
As such, it may have been the prelude that we saw in the past few weeks...

Google has never counteracted spam.

IMHO, Wally's off his trolley; either that or just plain trolling.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Sn!pe

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'm cutting the crosspost.

Post by Wally J

Post by Grant Taylor
The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

I have no evidence of this circumstantial claim based on timing alone, but
I suspect maybe Google killed 'something' in preparation for this shutdown,
which is what allowed all the google-based spam to suddenly flood the ngs.

Why would you believe that?

Post by Wally J
What that 'something' might have possibly been, I cannot hope to say -
other than it may have been what opened the previously-closed floodgates.
As such, it may have been the prelude that we saw in the past few weeks...

Google has never counteracted spam.

IMHO, Wally's off his trolley; either that or just plain trolling.

It's always time to declare a seamusing, isn't it.

[Sn!pe]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
It's always time to declare a seamusing, isn't it.

To me, it smells like Arlen.

[Marco Moock]

Post by Wally J
Anyway, the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?,
some?) newsgroups is the narkive - but it really sucks in my humble
opinion.
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com
I would like to ask others to check it out as I've never been
successful with it; but maybe it's just the privacy stuff I have on
my browsers?

It works, posting is intentionally disabled.
I can read groups properly, some are full of Google spam.

Sadly, there is no list of all groups hosted there.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Marco Moock

Post by Wally J
the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?,
some?) newsgroups is the narkive

Sadly, there is no list of all groups hosted there.

Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.

[Marco Moock]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Marco Moock

Post by Wally J
the closest archive I know of that covers "most" (many?,
some?) newsgroups is the narkive

Sadly, there is no list of all groups hosted there.

Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.

Davide Cavion <***@narkive.com>

[Andy Burns]

Post by Andy Burns
Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.

I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.

[Wally J]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Andy Burns
Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.

I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.

I sent him an email when I first saw this email address, oh, about an hour
or so ago - so let me check for a bounceback... looks good. No return.

I asked David to look at this thread (which, let's be clear to the
naysayers, I conveniently referenced by URL) to see if he could help out.
I even suggested some of you guys might offer him improvement advice.

Now that you reminded us of the rocksolid URL, we have two search engines
to test out to see if either works as we would have wanted dejagoogle to.

<https://news.software.nntp.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>
and
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=news.software.nntp
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=news.admin.peering
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
which redirects to:
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.software.nntp>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.peering>
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

Note that I only realized the redirect when I saw this in my old notes.
<https://www.novabbs.com/rocksolid/thread.php?group=rocksolid.shared.helpdesk>
--
Usenet is a team of intelligent experienced people who help each other out.

[Marco Moock]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Andy Burns
Nor is there any way to contact them and request adding newer groups.

I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.

It worked some weeks ago.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Marco Moock

Post by Andy Burns
I think that bounced when I tried it a few years ago.

It worked some weeks ago.

Since Davide has surfaced in n.a.peering, I've replied to him there.

[The Doctor]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by The Doctor
This is what you get when you cannot control spamtrollers!

I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
them to.
I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in
preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
did recently.
Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement
wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
the spam was no longer detected and prevented.
An Oops, followed by "let's see if anyone notices" and "oh ... they
noticed, shut it off" seems very likely.

CERtainly does sound competent.

Post by Grant Taylor
--
Grant. . . .

[Timo]

Post by Grant Taylor
I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
them to.

I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
longer offered.

Post by Grant Taylor
I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in
preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
did recently.

The amount of spam seems to have been increasing daily for about two
years now. I see this not only in Usenet.
The bots are becoming more intelligent, for example, through AI.

Post by Grant Taylor
Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement
wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
the spam was no longer detected and prevented.

I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a
short time.

[Grant Taylor]

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the least)
in order to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.

LOL

I'll believe it. I saw enough shit like that on the inside.

Like I have said elsewhere, the "Don't" fell over and all that remains
is "be Evil" of the Hollywood style sign.

My view from the inside has made me believe that Usenet support was in
bit-rot mode at Google years ago. Not even on life support.

[The Doctor]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the least)
in order to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.

LOL
I'll believe it. I saw enough shit like that on the inside.
Like I have said elsewhere, the "Don't" fell over and all that remains
is "be Evil" of the Hollywood style sign.
My view from the inside has made me believe that Usenet support was in
bit-rot mode at Google years ago. Not even on life support.

Google just shot themselves in the foot vis-a-vis usenet!

Post by Grant Taylor
--
Grant. . . .

[D]

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
"Effective February 15, 2024

snip

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
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."

googlegroups is the number one spammer in all of usenet history,
therefore googlegroups does not support spam and will shut down
the gargantuan google2news servers effective midnight 2024-2-15;
usually when something bad is taken away, something worse takes
its place . . . surely they've planned well in advance for this

[yamo']

Hi,

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the least) in order
to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.

What a pity!
It is not a good publicity for Google!

[The Doctor]

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
Hi,

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
https://support.google.com/groups?p=usenet
My friend Jason says that Google permitted the spam wave (at the

least) in order

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
to have an excuse to kill their Usenet interface.

What a pity!
It is not a good publicity for Google!

Exactement!

Post by Bring Back Jason Todd
--
Stéphane