Re: Rogue cmsg (was Google (was RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.*))

On 23 Nov 2004 14:51:46 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607(at)hotmail(dot)com>
wrote:

>Robert McClenon <robert(dot)mcclenon(at)verizon(dot)net> wrote in
>news:fob6q0166sa2gfkse9dekl3e7bslpi3qc1(at)4ax(dot)com:
>
>> It is very late to try to try to deal with this ancient net abuse.
>
>Agreed, though I felt that it needed to be mentioned in the RFD.
>
>> At
>> this point a bogus group that has substantial traffic should be
>> regularized, and a bogus group that has very little traffic should be
>> ignored (non-archived, non-peered).
>
>What if essentially none of that traffic originates from a newsreader? I
>could take any popular (or not-so-popular) mailing list and gate all of the
>e-mailed messages from list subscribers to a newsgroup of my choice. That
>would not be an indicator of Usenet popularity for the given topic. Having
>looked at the traffic in *.general and the other proposed groups,
>practically *all* of the traffic was e-mailed by list subscribers. The only
>substantial traffic originating from Usenet since the RFD started has come
>from news.groups regulars.

Seems most people on the group had no idea that their posts were going
anywhere but google. Every inbound post appears as an email to the
list. Who'd know?

BTW, we'll be dropping the groups shortly. No sense pushing water up
hill.
--
gburnore(at)databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
===========================================================================