Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #8738 > unrolled thread

Google Feed

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

Contents

  Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-03-29 10:34 -0700
    Re: Google Feed Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2012-03-29 11:28 -0700
      Re: Google Feed nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2012-03-29 11:52 -0700
        Re: Google Feed Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-03-29 21:19 -0400
      Re: Google Feed PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-29 16:44 -0400
        Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-30 08:38 +1100
          Re: Google Feed PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-29 22:03 -0400
            Re: Google Feed Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2012-03-30 03:48 +0000
              Re: Google Feed PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-30 09:07 -0400
                Re: Google Feed Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2012-03-30 20:19 +0000
                  Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-31 09:08 +1100
                    Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-03-30 18:08 -0700
                      Re: Google Feed *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-30 22:53 -0400
                        Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-03-31 14:06 +1100
        Re: Google Feed *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-30 19:19 -0500
    Re: Google Feed Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-29 20:49 +0200
      Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-03-29 13:59 -0700
        Re: Google Feed dog_cow@macgui.com (D Finnigan) - 2012-03-29 23:08 +0000
        Re: Google Feed PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-03-29 21:55 -0400
          Re: Google Feed *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-30 19:06 -0500
            Re: Google Feed Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-03-31 09:17 +0200
              Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-03-31 21:18 -0700
                Re: Google Feed Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-01 14:46 +0200
    Re: Google Feed *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-30 20:28 -0400
    Re: Google Feed Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz@gmail.com> - 2012-03-29 13:01 -0700
      Re: Google Feed dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2012-04-03 12:30 +1200
        Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-04-02 21:40 -0700
          Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-03 18:21 +1000
            Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-04-03 07:08 -0700
              Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-04 04:52 +1000
                Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-04-03 12:59 -0700
                  Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-04 08:50 +1000
                    Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-04-03 16:59 -0700
                      Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-04 10:59 +1000
                        Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-04-03 22:02 -0700
                          Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-04 16:40 +1000
                            Re: Google Feed gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2012-04-04 07:11 -0700
                              Re: Google Feed dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-04-05 03:50 +1000
        Re: Google Feed Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-03 14:38 +0200
    Re: Google Feed dog_cow@macgui.com (D Finnigan) - 2012-04-02 23:31 +0000
      Re: Google Feed PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> - 2012-04-02 22:42 -0400
      Re: Google Feed jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2012-04-03 16:18 +1200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#8738 — Google Feed

So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their 
incoming posts to usenet?
-- 
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us 
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. 
-- Galileo

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8739

In article <2012032910344350354-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their 
> incoming posts to usenet?

Yeah.  They shut that feed off just to piss you off.

Seriously, since I filter all posts from google groups from my news 
service, I don't see any change.  Just the usual suspects here.

Have you looked on their site to see if they've announced any change to 
their service?  Have you checked other news providers to see if there 
aren't any recent postings?

I remember getting calls as a sysadmin from various people telling me 
that the 'internet was down'.  Mostly, it was because email from a 
specific person hadn't shown up in their inbox yet.  Sometimes, it _was_ 
down and we'd be on the phone with our upstream provider who was on the 
phone with their upstream provider who was dealing with a fire in a 
wiring vault in downtown SF.

But I don't think that's the case here.  I'd check other news providers.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8741

Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> I remember getting calls as a sysadmin from various people telling me
> that the 'internet was down'.  Mostly, it was because email from a 
> specific person hadn't shown up in their inbox yet.

Or then, the other way around, and from a bit earlier time...

I had at least one person call me to say that one of the applications I
had developed wasn't working. Turns out the problem was that he had
forgotten his logon id/password for the central computer that he ran
that app on. That app being most of what he used that computer for, I
guess it all blurred together in his mind....

along with a bunch of other things. Most of the time, he was a bright
enough engineer. But every once in a while I wondered whether he was
having flashbacks from the LSD that I'm pretty sure he had done in the
60's. Like that time. When I reminded him that his username was his last
name, that still drew a blank for a while until I spelled it out for
him. :-(

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8760

On 03-29-2012 14:52, Richard Maine wrote:
> 60's. Like that time. When I reminded him that his username was his last
> name, that still drew a blank for a while until I spelled it out for
> him.:-(

LAST name?  My current name is the only name I've ever had.

     G-R-O-L-E-A-U

Oh, sheesh, nobody ever calls me _that_


-- 
Wes Groleau

    Ostracism: A practice of sticking your head in the sand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8746

Michael Vilain wrote:
> In article<2012032910344350354-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr<xxx@yyy.zzz>  wrote:
>
>> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their
>> incoming posts to usenet?
>
> Yeah.  They shut that feed off just to piss you off.
>
> Seriously, since I filter all posts from google groups from my news
> service, I don't see any change.  Just the usual suspects here.
>
> Have you looked on their site to see if they've announced any change to
> their service?  Have you checked other news providers to see if there
> aren't any recent postings?
>
> I remember getting calls as a sysadmin from various people telling me
> that the 'internet was down'.  Mostly, it was because email from a
> specific person hadn't shown up in their inbox yet.  Sometimes, it _was_
> down and we'd be on the phone with our upstream provider who was on the
> phone with their upstream provider who was dealing with a fire in a
> wiring vault in downtown SF.
>
> But I don't think that's the case here.  I'd check other news providers.
>
I think its wonderful news if it's so. I've tried to create filters to 
kill the anything to do with googlegroups.com I've tried about 8 or 10 
ways and still would not work. Wouldn't hurt my feeling if they were to 
disband Google Groups. It obvious the don't have any moderation. If they 
did we wouldn't have the problems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8751

In article <jl2hka$g0m$1@news.albasani.net>,
 PhillipJones <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:

> I think its wonderful news if it's so. I've tried to create filters to 
> kill the anything to do with googlegroups.com I've tried about 8 or 10 
> ways and still would not work. Wouldn't hurt my feeling if they were to 
> disband Google Groups. It obvious the don't have any moderation. If they 
> did we wouldn't have the problems.

It is not hard, surely, to filter all of google groups

Kill if 'organization' contains "http://groups.google.com"

but to allow some from GG to come in with such as:

Keep if 'from' contains 'Fred Bloggs' and high priority


Anyway, about moderation? There is no moderation on most of the usenet 
groups no matter what newsreaders are being used. Perhaps you mean 
attention by the suppliers of the feeds to filtering identifiable spam 
etc?

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8763

dorayme wrote:
> In article<jl2hka$g0m$1@news.albasani.net>,
>   PhillipJones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>  wrote:
>
>> I think its wonderful news if it's so. I've tried to create filters to
>> kill the anything to do with googlegroups.com I've tried about 8 or 10
>> ways and still would not work. Wouldn't hurt my feeling if they were to
>> disband Google Groups. It obvious the don't have any moderation. If they
>> did we wouldn't have the problems.
>
> It is not hard, surely, to filter all of google groups
>
> Kill if 'organization' contains "http://groups.google.com"
>
> but to allow some from GG to come in with such as:
>
> Keep if 'from' contains 'Fred Bloggs' and high priority
>
>
> Anyway, about moderation? There is no moderation on most of the usenet
> groups no matter what newsreaders are being used. Perhaps you mean
> attention by the suppliers of the feeds to filtering identifiable spam
> etc?
>
Actually Google Groups  are like many web based groups and are supposed 
to have moderators.  I for example am a moderator on a Yahoo Group and I 
am strict when it comes to spam. or demeaning content. It gone as soon 
as I see it. I am required to give an explaination when I do  and I have 
yet to receive a notice of override.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8764

In article <jl349a$dq2$1@news.albasani.net>,
PhillipJones  <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>dorayme wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, about moderation? There is no moderation on most of the usenet
>> groups no matter what newsreaders are being used. 
>>
>Actually Google Groups  are like many web based groups and are supposed 
>to have moderators.  

You are confusing actual Google Groups with the Google interface
to Usenet. Not that Google makes the differentiation easy, because
they lump the Usenet groups in the part of their site called "Google
Groups." But the two types of groups are vastly different.


>I for example am a moderator on a Yahoo Group and I 
>am strict when it comes to spam. or demeaning content. 

And if you set up a Google Group, you can do the same. True 
Google Groups do have owners/moderators. Most Usenet groups
do not.


>It gone as soon 
>as I see it. I am required to give an explaination when I do  and I have 
>yet to receive a notice of override.

Yahoo does not require moderators to explain why they reject a posting.
They can do so if they wish, but they are not required to.


Patty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8767

Patty Winter wrote:
> In article<jl349a$dq2$1@news.albasani.net>,
> PhillipJones<pjones1@kimbanet.com>  wrote:
>> dorayme wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyway, about moderation? There is no moderation on most of the usenet
>>> groups no matter what newsreaders are being used.
>>>
>> Actually Google Groups  are like many web based groups and are supposed
>> to have moderators.
>
> You are confusing actual Google Groups with the Google interface
> to Usenet. Not that Google makes the differentiation easy, because
> they lump the Usenet groups in the part of their site called "Google
> Groups." But the two types of groups are vastly different.
>
>
>> I for example am a moderator on a Yahoo Group and I
>> am strict when it comes to spam. or demeaning content.
>
> And if you set up a Google Group, you can do the same. True
> Google Groups do have owners/moderators. Most Usenet groups
> do not.
>
>
>> It gone as soon
>> as I see it. I am required to give an explaination when I do  and I have
>> yet to receive a notice of override.
>
> Yahoo does not require moderators to explain why they reject a posting.
> They can do so if they wish, but they are not required to.

Have you rejected a Post?
The times I have a notice comes up "State reason".  with a box to give 
your comments.

> Patty
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8775

In article <jl4b5n$46j$1@news.albasani.net>,
PhillipJones  <pjones1@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>Patty Winter wrote:

[unneeded quotage deleted]


>> Yahoo does not require moderators to explain why they reject a posting.
>> They can do so if they wish, but they are not required to.
>
>Have you rejected a Post?

Of course. I've co-owned a group for more than a decade.


>The times I have a notice comes up "State reason".  with a box to give 
>your comments.

I get no such box when I reject a posting. The submitted posting
is automatically pasted into a text field. I can type into that
field or not; the rejection works all the same.

Further discussion about this should take place on a YG managers
list, as we have drifted away from the topic of whether GG postings
are making it to this newsgroup.


Patty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8776

In article <4f76153c$0$49339$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:

> ... the topic of whether GG postings
> are making it to this newsgroup.

Postings from usenet still appear on groups.google.com, does this mean 
they recognise they can't make it on their complete ownsome? Perhaps 
they will completely drop their connections?

Now GG will not be such an accurate record when looking up threads, 
the prospect of relying on MT-N's search function (given it *is* an 
online reader after all) is surely not too appealing.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8781

On 2012-03-30 22:08:18 +0000, dorayme said:

> In article <4f76153c$0$49339$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>  Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
> 
>> ... the topic of whether GG postings
>> are making it to this newsgroup.
> 
> Postings from usenet still appear on groups.google.com, does this mean
> they recognise they can't make it on their complete ownsome? Perhaps
> they will completely drop their connections?

No.  It means what it meant two weeks ago: We don't know what they're 
doing or when they'll do it.

> Now GG will not be such an accurate record when looking up threads,
> the prospect of relying on MT-N's search function (given it *is* an
> online reader after all) is surely not too appealing.

GG is a pain in the ass.
-- 
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us 
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. 
-- Galileo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8786

On 03/30/2012 09:08 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2012-03-30 22:08:18 +0000, dorayme said:
>
>> In article <4f76153c$0$49339$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>> Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ... the topic of whether GG postings
>>> are making it to this newsgroup.
>>
>> Postings from usenet still appear on groups.google.com, does this mean
>> they recognise they can't make it on their complete ownsome? Perhaps
>> they will completely drop their connections?
>
> No. It means what it meant two weeks ago: We don't know what they're
> doing or when they'll do it.
>
>> Now GG will not be such an accurate record when looking up threads,
>> the prospect of relying on MT-N's search function (given it *is* an
>> online reader after all) is surely not too appealing.
>
> GG is a pain in the ass.

And changing over to a "new look" allegedly better than the "present 
look". But on the other hand I've been messing with three different 
newsreaders (Thunderbird, Pan, and XPN) in Linux and my eyes are getting 
loopy (I have a headache in my eye). Still like the look and feel of 
Thunderbird.

What I've seen of the new Google Groups interface for desktop was really 
weird. Mobile version isn't so bad for reading, but someone on another 
group tried it for posting and it doesn't handle quoting very well at all.

And Google traditionally does weird things when the number of posts in a 
thread reach around 1000. Posts start getting scattered everywhere 
orphaned from the thread. And I've seen threads get broken due to the 
way header fields were being handled for some people who switched over 
to the new version, though this may have been resolved.

-- 
*Hemidactylus*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8788

In article <vJadneJ_-6YG7OvSnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/30/2012 09:08 PM, gtr wrote:
> > On 2012-03-30 22:08:18 +0000, dorayme said:
> >
> >> In article <4f76153c$0$49339$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> >> Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ... the topic of whether GG postings
> >>> are making it to this newsgroup.
> >>
> >> Postings from usenet still appear on groups.google.com, does this mean
> >> they recognise they can't make it on their complete ownsome? Perhaps
> >> they will completely drop their connections?
> >
> > No. It means what it meant two weeks ago: We don't know what they're
> > doing or when they'll do it.
> >
> >> Now GG will not be such an accurate record when looking up threads,
> >> the prospect of relying on MT-N's search function (given it *is* an
> >> online reader after all) is surely not too appealing.
> >
> > GG is a pain in the ass.
>

If someone does not go to GG and if he or she filters all GG, is it a 
pita in the way a very shrill whistle sounds off in a place where that 
person is not?

 
> And changing over to a "new look" allegedly better than the "present 
> look". But on the other hand I've been messing with three different 
> newsreaders (Thunderbird, Pan, and XPN) in Linux and my eyes are getting 
> loopy (I have a headache in my eye). Still like the look and feel of 
> Thunderbird.
> 
> What I've seen of the new Google Groups interface for desktop was really 
> weird. Mobile version isn't so bad for reading, but someone on another 
> group tried it for posting and it doesn't handle quoting very well at all.
> 
> And Google traditionally does weird things when the number of posts in a 
> thread reach around 1000. Posts start getting scattered everywhere 
> orphaned from the thread. And I've seen threads get broken due to the 
> way header fields were being handled for some people who switched over 
> to the new version, though this may have been resolved.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8779

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:44:52 -0400, PhillipJones wrote:

> Michael Vilain wrote:
>> In article<2012032910344350354-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr<xxx@yyy.zzz>  wrote:
>>
>>> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their
>>> incoming posts to usenet?
>>
>> Yeah.  They shut that feed off just to piss you off.
>>
>> Seriously, since I filter all posts from google groups from my news
>> service, I don't see any change.  Just the usual suspects here.
>>
>> Have you looked on their site to see if they've announced any change to
>> their service?  Have you checked other news providers to see if there
>> aren't any recent postings?
>>
>> I remember getting calls as a sysadmin from various people telling me
>> that the 'internet was down'.  Mostly, it was because email from a
>> specific person hadn't shown up in their inbox yet.  Sometimes, it
>> _was_ down and we'd be on the phone with our upstream provider who was
>> on the phone with their upstream provider who was dealing with a fire
>> in a wiring vault in downtown SF.
>>
>> But I don't think that's the case here.  I'd check other news
>> providers.
>>
> I think its wonderful news if it's so. I've tried to create filters to
> kill the anything to do with googlegroups.com I've tried about 8 or 10
> ways and still would not work. Wouldn't hurt my feeling if they were to
> disband Google Groups. It obvious the don't have any moderation. If they
> did we wouldn't have the problems.

Moderation is something that happens on individual newsgroups. I've had 
experience with three moderated groups. One had an actual human moderator 
who would receive the posts and decide whether they violated the 
guidelines of the group and let them through if not. Two others were robo-
moderated and enforced things like a limit on crossposting or the ratio 
between reply and quoted text. Humans maintained these bots and would 
take action if a regular notified them of spam or abuse. 

One of these bots was set up to blacklist traffic from certain sources 
(either gmail or Google Groups) and whitelist traffic from that 
blacklisted source that supplied a certain passphrase (in subject line or 
body). This circumvented a lot of chinese sneaker spam that was swamping 
the group. That was nifty and effective.

There are other sources of usenet problems besides Google Groups, but 
they seem to do more than their share. Still it's an easy tool to use, 
when it works and people who aren't abusers rely on it when it works.

I do have the mobile version on my Opera speed dial on my phone and check 
up on a favorite group from time to time. But I only read usenet using 
Google Groups.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8743

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:34:43 -0700, gtr wrote:

> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their incoming
> posts to usenet?

I thought things had gone quiet.  Do you have a link for that?

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8747

On 2012-03-29 18:49:36 +0000, Paul Sture said:

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:34:43 -0700, gtr wrote:
> 
>> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their incoming
>> posts to usenet?
> 
> I thought things had gone quiet.  Do you have a link for that?

No link--no assertion!  But I have managed to confirm giganews is 
passing stuff along, that Unison is working and displaying my messages 
and those which do not originate from google groups.

I participate in rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz where inexplicably 90% of 
the crew uses google groups and refuses to budge. They are a chatty lot 
and there has been nothing, actually, since yesterday.  I went to 
groups.google and there have been a few posts, maybe 4 or 5, that 
Unison has not relayed. I believe these messages originate from the 
google groups, but I can't find the headers in google-groups any more. 
Unison has relayed back my one post which originated from Unison. It 
too is being stored at google.

So I figure that google's broke again. They've had outages a few times 
over the past 4 or 5 months, where a day or three goes by and they gimp 
something up.

On a few occasions they were going out to usenet, but weren't being 
displayed at groups.google.
-- 
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us 
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. 
-- Galileo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8758

gtr wrote:
> On 2012-03-29 18:49:36 +0000, Paul Sture said:
> 
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:34:43 -0700, gtr wrote:
>> 
>>> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their incoming
>>> posts to usenet?
>> 
>> I thought things had gone quiet.  Do you have a link for that?
> 
> No link--no assertion!  But I have managed to confirm giganews is 
> passing stuff along, that Unison is working and displaying my messages 
> and those which do not originate from google groups.
> 

It doesn't seem that way.

Compare here: http://macgui.com/usenet/?group=46

-- 
]DF$
Mac GUI Vault - A source for retro Apple II and
Macintosh computing.
http://macgui.com/vault/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8762

gtr wrote:
> On 2012-03-29 18:49:36 +0000, Paul Sture said:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:34:43 -0700, gtr wrote:
>>
>>> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their incoming
>>> posts to usenet?
>>
>> I thought things had gone quiet. Do you have a link for that?
>
> No link--no assertion! But I have managed to confirm giganews is passing
> stuff along, that Unison is working and displaying my messages and those
> which do not originate from google groups.
>
> I participate in rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz where inexplicably 90% of
> the crew uses google groups and refuses to budge. They are a chatty lot
> and there has been nothing, actually, since yesterday. I went to
> groups.google and there have been a few posts, maybe 4 or 5, that Unison
> has not relayed. I believe these messages originate from the google
> groups, but I can't find the headers in google-groups any more. Unison
> has relayed back my one post which originated from Unison. It too is
> being stored at google.
>
> So I figure that google's broke again. They've had outages a few times
> over the past 4 or 5 months, where a day or three goes by and they gimp
> something up.
>
> On a few occasions they were going out to usenet, but weren't being
> displayed at groups.google.
THis Kind of Break I hope stays broke for 20 years. All that Bigot stuff 
that had been posted to this group first of the week came solely came 
from Google Groups. I'm not surprised after announcement a few weeks ago 
that basically there is no longer any privacy.
after asking about how to create a Filter to mark all the stuff as read. 
I discovered every last piece come from Google groups.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8778

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:55:39 -0400, PhillipJones wrote:

> gtr wrote:
>> On 2012-03-29 18:49:36 +0000, Paul Sture said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:34:43 -0700, gtr wrote:
>>>
>>>> So as of this morning google.groups is no longer relaying their
>>>> incoming posts to usenet?
>>>
>>> I thought things had gone quiet. Do you have a link for that?
>>
>> No link--no assertion! But I have managed to confirm giganews is
>> passing stuff along, that Unison is working and displaying my messages
>> and those which do not originate from google groups.
>>
>> I participate in rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz where inexplicably 90% of
>> the crew uses google groups and refuses to budge. They are a chatty lot
>> and there has been nothing, actually, since yesterday. I went to
>> groups.google and there have been a few posts, maybe 4 or 5, that
>> Unison has not relayed. I believe these messages originate from the
>> google groups, but I can't find the headers in google-groups any more.
>> Unison has relayed back my one post which originated from Unison. It
>> too is being stored at google.
>>
>> So I figure that google's broke again. They've had outages a few times
>> over the past 4 or 5 months, where a day or three goes by and they gimp
>> something up.
>>
>> On a few occasions they were going out to usenet, but weren't being
>> displayed at groups.google.
> THis Kind of Break I hope stays broke for 20 years. All that Bigot stuff
> that had been posted to this group first of the week came solely came
> from Google Groups. I'm not surprised after announcement a few weeks ago
> that basically there is no longer any privacy. after asking about how to
> create a Filter to mark all the stuff as read. I discovered every last
> piece come from Google groups.

There are good people who use Google Groups and blocking it altogether 
might block decent stuff from getting through. Killfiling individuals or 
threads would be the option I'd take.

That being said I'm not a big fan of Google Groups. They do make it 
easier for spammers and other vile junk to hit my newsreader. And their 
archiving isn't all that good anymore. 

And they do experience outages. Given the number of people who use Google 
Groups such outages make it seem like usenet had gone dark on some groups.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web