[Info-vax] A cry for help

[bill]

On 11/4/2023 3:48 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <kqnajqFashU2 at mid.individual.net>,
> bill  <bill.gunshannon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/4/2023 11:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> John Reagan  <xyzzy1959 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've been doing this manually and also reported to Google thru other channe=
>>>> ls.  No difference so far.
>>>
>>> Google is not the solution.  Google is the problem.  Expecting anyone at
>>> Google to ever do anything about their customers' constant and incessant
>>> abuse of Usenet is futile.  It has been going on for decades now and
>>> complaints to Google have never done any good.
>>>
>>> Get off Google, and get onto a legitimate Usenet service.  Many of them
>>> block postings from Google, and the ones that don't will allow you a
>>> normal newsreader which has services to block this stuff.
>>
>> Some one has to be providing Google with a feed.  The answer is to get
>> all of them to stop providing any kind of connection to Google.
> 
> The UDP against Google was attempted back in 2005 or so.  The general
> feeling at the time was that although more posts from Google were trash
> than legitimate, the backbone cabal felt that that the legitimate posts
> justified the feed.

I certainly would not agree with that.

> 
> In the past when a UDP had been proposed, the mere threat of the UDP
> caused the site admins to take notice and start dealing with their
> problems, so the UDP is primarily more effective as a threat than
> anything else. Unfortunately Google doesn't really have anyone actually
> running Google Groups.  It seems to be mostly unattended, and news admins
> have never been able to get in touch with anyone there.  So as a threat,
> the UDP is useless.  It is only useful in action to disable all traffic
> and whether or not this is a real benefit is a thing that can be discussed.


Then, it is time to impose the UDP.  It takes no action on the part of
Google to do this.

bill