begin quoting Tracy R Reed as of Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 01:20:43PM -0700: > Randall Shimizu wrote: > >It's true there is a lot more spam on usenet. I think the answer is to use > >a spam filter on client viewer. Someone told me of ignore messages in > >Google Groups using the Greas Monkey extension to Firefox. I have not > >tried this as of yet. > > A spam filter isn't the solution in this case. The spam has driven away > most of the active contributors such that a lot of the newsgroups I read > are dead. Just yesterday a very active and valuable contributor of > around 15 years announced that he was leaving the group for a web forum. > The group gets maybe a couple legit posts a day now. And dozens of spam. > If you filter out the spam there really isn't much left. Web forums have > moderators which can delete and lock out spammers. That is the only > thing they have going for them as far as I am concerned.
There are moderated newsgroups that do a decent job of locking out spammers, but that doesn't seem to be the answer. > People have been predicting the death of Usenet for years. But in the > last year or two there has been a significant change in the nature of > Usenet such that it seems that it is actually happening this time. What constitutes "death"? It's overdue for a major purge. If Usenet lost 75% of the newsgroups, would that be 'death'? If it dwindled to just 100 newsservers, would that be 'death'? How do we measure such things? -- "Dead to me" is something else entirely. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
