Thread: OT: Has Eternal September Hiccuped?

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:31:10 -0700, Ranée at Arabian Knits
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I posted a few things yesterday that showed up on my news reader, but
>don't seem to be on Google and I haven't seen a response to them from
>anyone. Does anyone know if this is just my computer or an
>eternal-september deal?

Your post is here so the answer is no. It might have had a problem
but if it did it's fixed. I just looked at google and there's nothing
there for two days. This is why some of us don't understand why
people use google.

Lou

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:31:10 -0700, Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:

> I posted a few things yesterday that showed up on my news reader, but
> don't seem to be on Google and I haven't seen a response to them from
> anyone. Does anyone know if this is just my computer or an
> eternal-september deal?


What is on of the messages you think is missing and we can check out
news servers to see if they showed up?

-sw

In article <[email protected]>,
Lou Decruss <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:31:10 -0700, Ranée at Arabian Knits
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I posted a few things yesterday that showed up on my news reader, but
> >don't seem to be on Google and I haven't seen a response to them from
> >anyone. Does anyone know if this is just my computer or an
> >eternal-september deal?
>
> Your post is here so the answer is no. It might have had a problem
> but if it did it's fixed. I just looked at google and there's nothing
> there for two days. This is why some of us don't understand why
> people use google.

I'm pretty sure if there was a problem, it was yesterday. I don't
use Google except to search (I miss dejanews). Or did you mean there
was no Google record of any r.f.c activity over the last two days?

Regards,
Ranee @ Arabian Knits

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

On 6/27/2011 7:31 AM, Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
> I posted a few things yesterday that showed up on my news reader, but
> don't seem to be on Google and I haven't seen a response to them from
> anyone. Does anyone know if this is just my computer or an
> eternal-september deal?
>
> Regards,
> Ranee @ Arabian Knits
>
> "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13
>
> http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

I tried posting several times through ES but was given an error message
about an illegal header and the posting was aborted. I copied the
message and then posted through Google Groups. ES has been pretty
sluggish for the past few days. Don't even ask me about Usenet-news.net! :-)

OTOH, something is going on with Google Groups which seems to have had a
major hiccup in the past few days. Hardly anything is getting posted on GG.

The current state of Usenet is not looking so good...

dsi1 wrote:

> The current state of Usenet is not looking so good...

Why? Usenet seems fine from my end.

--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."--------
----- Robert Heinlein

On 6/27/2011 11:15 AM, Dave Bugg wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>
>> The current state of Usenet is not looking so good...
>
> Why? Usenet seems fine from my end.
>

Sluggish response and occasional time-outs from my 2 servers. It could
be my T-bird reader. I'm not sure why that would be - I delete all
messages over 30 days old. A lot of the times it's just faster to use
Google Groups.

Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure if there was a problem, it was yesterday. I don't
> use Google except to search (I miss dejanews). Or did you mean there
> was no Google record of any r.f.c activity over the last two days?

I use it as my backup posting server when eternal-september is down in
addition to using it as an archive. I just logged in and checked.
Nothing for two days on any of the groups I subscribe to in the Goggle
interface and my profile does not list any posts in the last two days.

Google burps every so often. Given that my account is free I get more
than I pay for from that account.

dsi1 wrote:
> On 6/27/2011 11:15 AM, Dave Bugg wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>>> The current state of Usenet is not looking so good...
>>
>> Why? Usenet seems fine from my end.
>>
>
> Sluggish response and occasional time-outs from my 2 servers. It could
> be my T-bird reader. I'm not sure why that would be - I delete all
> messages over 30 days old. A lot of the times it's just faster to use
> Google Groups.

OK, I got it. Usenet is not looking good from your end. Bummer.
--
Dave
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."--------
----- Robert Heinlein

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:44:34 -1000, dsi1 <[email protected]>
wrote:

> OTOH, something is going on with Google Groups which seems to have had a
> major hiccup in the past few days. Hardly anything is getting posted on GG.
>
Has it affected GG spammers?

> The current state of Usenet is not looking so good...

Maybe it's a good thing if we aren't getting the usual amount of spam.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:21:52 -1000, dsi1 <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On 6/27/2011 11:15 AM, Dave Bugg wrote:
> > dsi1 wrote:
> >
> >> The current state of Usenet is not looking so good...
> >
> > Why? Usenet seems fine from my end.
> >
>
> Sluggish response and occasional time-outs from my 2 servers. It could
> be my T-bird reader. I'm not sure why that would be - I delete all
> messages over 30 days old. A lot of the times it's just faster to use
> Google Groups.

My server is just fine. No problems (yet).

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 6/27/2011 12:33 PM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:44:34 -1000, dsi1<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> OTOH, something is going on with Google Groups which seems to have had a
>> major hiccup in the past few days. Hardly anything is getting posted on GG.
>>
> Has it affected GG spammers?
>
>> The current state of Usenet is not looking so good...
>
> Maybe it's a good thing if we aren't getting the usual amount of spam.
>

It looks like most of the posters today are not coming in through Google
Groups, It could be some sort of attack on the site. As you know, the
animosity towards GG is strong.

OTOH, I've never noticed much spam recently in Usenet or GG. Not like
the old days at least...

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:40:30 -1000, dsi1 <[email protected]>
wrote:

> OTOH, I've never noticed much spam recently in Usenet or GG. Not like
> the old days at least...

Have you tried to read rfc via GG? The spam is horrendous - I just
looked. "Replica watches" and "work from home" are #18 & #19.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 6/27/2011 1:41 PM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:40:30 -1000, dsi1<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> OTOH, I've never noticed much spam recently in Usenet or GG. Not like
>> the old days at least...
>
> Have you tried to read rfc via GG? The spam is horrendous - I just
> looked. "Replica watches" and "work from home" are #18& #19.
>

I go on Google Groups frequently. What's your definition of "horrendous
spam?" 10% spam? 5%? 2%? Near as I can figure, this group averages about
330 posts a day so at 2% spamage, you're talking about 6.6 posts daily.
I think you might be exaggerating your point just a tiny bit. :-)

I don't see any spam on the first page mostly because I do a topic list
view which tends to list the most active topics first and pretty much
moves idle topics down the list. The reason I see no spam is because
nobody responds to spam and it gets down-listed rapidly. Google Groups
users can report spam by simply hitting a button - I doubt you can do
that with your reader. My guess is that you don't want to be hitting
that button without good cause - Google ain't gonna take false reporting
too kindly.

If my memory serves me right, spam was a major problem a decade ago.
That was horrendous, alright. These days it's a cakewalk to avoid spam.

On 27/06/2011 3:50 PM, Ranée at Arabian Knits wrote:
> In article<[email protected] >,
> Lou Decruss<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:31:10 -0700, Ranée at Arabian Knits
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I posted a few things yesterday that showed up on my news reader, but
>>> don't seem to be on Google and I haven't seen a response to them from
>>> anyone. Does anyone know if this is just my computer or an
>>> eternal-september deal?
>>
>> Your post is here so the answer is no. It might have had a problem
>> but if it did it's fixed. I just looked at google and there's nothing
>> there for two days. This is why some of us don't understand why
>> people use google.
>
> I'm pretty sure if there was a problem, it was yesterday. I don't
> use Google except to search (I miss dejanews). Or did you mean there
> was no Google record of any r.f.c activity over the last two days?
>
> Regards,
> Ranee @ Arabian Knits
>
> "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13
>
> http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
Ranee - same for me. I reactivated my Thunderbird and put eternal
September in as the server and it's running just fine.
Google is not even contactable for stuff like this. Infuriating.
Hoges on the Chesapeake.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:52:01 -1000, dsi1 <[email protected]> wrote:

> I go on Google Groups frequently. What's your definition of "horrendous
> spam?" 10% spam? 5%? 2%? Near as I can figure, this group averages about
> 330 posts a day so at 2% spamage, you're talking about 6.6 posts daily.
> I think you might be exaggerating your point just a tiny bit. :-)

Oh, no... it's more than that. That's why I avoid the GG interface
unless I have to.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

Re: iuaq2n$hb8$[email protected]
dsi1 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hardly anything is getting
> posted on GG.

GG posts are disappearing?

Count your blessings.

Re: iub0t0$1gc$[email protected]
dsi1 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/27/2011 12:33 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:44:34 -1000, dsi1<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OTOH, something is going on with Google Groups which seems to have
>>> had a major hiccup in the past few days. Hardly anything is getting
>>> posted on GG.
>> Has it affected GG spammers?
>>
>>> The current state of Usenet is not looking so good...
>>
>> Maybe it's a good thing if we aren't getting the usual amount of
>> spam.
>
> It looks like most of the posters today are not coming in through
> Google Groups, It could be some sort of attack on the site. As you
> know, the animosity towards GG is strong.

Or it could be that GG is having problems and Google hasn't committed the
necessary resources to properly maintain and control GG, as usual.

>
> OTOH, I've never noticed much spam recently in Usenet or GG. Not like
> the old days at least...

Usenet is not an entity like Google and can't control anything. It's a
collection of forums in news format.

E-S does a very good job of filtering spam upstream.

Re: iub8ji$gci$[email protected]
dsi1 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/27/2011 1:41 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:40:30 -1000, dsi1<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OTOH, I've never noticed much spam recently in Usenet or GG. Not
>>> like the old days at least...
>>
>> Have you tried to read rfc via GG? The spam is horrendous - I just
>> looked. "Replica watches" and "work from home" are #18& #19.
>>
>
> I go on Google Groups frequently. What's your definition of
> "horrendous spam?" 10% spam? 5%? 2%? Near as I can figure, this group
> averages about 330 posts a day so at 2% spamage, you're talking about
> 6.6 posts daily. I think you might be exaggerating your point just a
> tiny bit. :-)
> I don't see any spam on the first page mostly because I do a topic
> list view which tends to list the most active topics first and pretty
> much moves idle topics down the list. The reason I see no spam is
> because nobody responds to spam and it gets down-listed rapidly.

So then you really don't know if there is a lot of spam on GG or not. You're
only saying you don't see it because of the way you view posts.

> Google Groups users can report spam by simply hitting a button - I
> doubt you can do that with your reader. My guess is that you don't
> want to be hitting that button without good cause - Google ain't
> gonna take false reporting too kindly.

ROFLMAO.... really? Obviously you've never tried to report anything to them.
They ignore just about everything. Complaining to them is the most pointless
exercise anywhere on the Internet.

And what are they gonna do on GG if you make a false report? They don't make
any effort to control access to mail or news. You reset your IP address, get
a new GG ID and post away. Why do you think there is so much spam? They
don't do anything to remove it, they don't do anything to control abusers,
and they don't do anything to control access.

MartyB

On 6/28/2011 4:34 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> Re: iuaq2n$hb8$[email protected]
> dsi1<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hardly anything is getting
>> posted on GG.
>
> GG posts are disappearing?
>
> Count your blessings.
>
>

Google Groups has been down for about 3 days. Interesting.