| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:07:23 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,683 |
On 24 Feb 2024 22:02:26 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:
when the spam problem became really bad thanks to Google,
I think some time around 1995
While the moment Google Groups went online there was "some" spam, didn't
the spam problem really multiply in the thousands only recently?
Like only a few months ago?
Almost as if either Google suddenly turned some kind of filter off, or
maybe the spammers suddenly started selling super-efficient ways around the normal Google spam filters?
I wouldn't blame Google so much as the spammers themselves, where it may
have been a single "spam king" for all we know, where I never understood
what the purpose was since the English-language spam was nearly incomprehensible.
Is there evidence for it being one small set of spammers software doing
most of the exponential increase in spam that escalated only a few months prior to Google shutting the whole thing down?
Gelato <gelato@.is.invalid> writes:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:33:23 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
1995 is not only before Google Groups, it's before Google existed at
all. Google the company was founded in 1998. Deja News wasn't
acquired by Google until 2001. The original spam problems on Usenet
didn't have anything to do with Google.
What is hard to understand is the nntp news admins who required a login
& password were apparently able to control spammers, so why couldn't
Google?
Spam filtering requires ongoing effort since it's adversarial (spammers adapt), and Google stopped caring about Google Groups years ago. I
suspect the service has been mostly running on autopilot for a while.
It will be interesting to see how well other servers continue to hold up against spam now that all the spammers will be looking for new injection points.
Using <news:urfp0j$f99$1@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey wrote:
uages identify the customers of the spammer but not necessarily
the spammer himself. Since we have one spammer who is posting
messages in a wide variety of languages including English, Thai,
Hindi, and Bhasa
Indonesia, knowing the language does not tell you much about who is running >> the spam itself, only the people who have hired him.
Has anyone figured out what exactly the payload was of the immense new spam that flooded the text newsgroups in the past few months at the rate of tens of thousands of spams per day?
Most of what they spammed made no sense to anyone.
What was their profit motive given an effort to spam 30K per day for
months?
Harry S Robins <stanleyrobins@nothere.uk> writes:
I wouldn't blame Google so much as the spammers themselves, where it may have been a single "spam king" for all we know, where I never understood what the purpose was since the English-language spam was nearly incomprehensible.
Is there evidence for it being one small set of spammers software doing most of the exponential increase in spam that escalated only a few months prior to Google shutting the whole thing down?
There were tens (or hundreds) of thousands of messages in Thai posted to sci.crypt right before Google stopped peering, and I really doubt it
served any purpose except of destroying that newsgroup.
There are other examples, too.
Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> wrote:
Harry S Robins <stanleyrobins@nothere.uk> writes:
I wouldn't blame Google so much as the spammers themselves, where it may >>> have been a single "spam king" for all we know, where I never understood >>> what the purpose was since the English-language spam was nearly
incomprehensible.
Is there evidence for it being one small set of spammers software doing
most of the exponential increase in spam that escalated only a few months >>> prior to Google shutting the whole thing down?
There were tens (or hundreds) of thousands of messages in Thai posted to
sci.crypt right before Google stopped peering, and I really doubt it
served any purpose except of destroying that newsgroup.
There are other examples, too.
A cynical person might imagine that it was government inspired.