> Rod Speed wrote >>> Does anyone know who are how to stop the spammer from taking >>> over this group with their advertising of Chinese junk???? >> Use a news server that filters that shit out so you never see it. >> news.individual.net does that and costs peanuts. > news.aioe.org costs nothing, and requires no registration.
Rod Speed wrote: > >> news.individual.net does that and costs peanuts.
> > news.aioe.org costs nothing, and requires no registration.
> But isnt anything like as reliable.
It's more rock-solid than apparently you realize.
I use it as my full-time and only nntp server, and I use it heavily several times a day, every day.
In the 3+ years that I've been using it like that, there have been 2 or 3 times when it's been down for perhaps a few days to a week, and the really bad time when it was down from Dec. 16 to Jan 30.
I wouldn't put up with a flaky server, and AIOE is definately not flaky or unrealiable.
Unless you also use it at least a dozen times per day (or way more, like I do) you can't really speak authoritatively about it.
Sum Guy wrote: > Rod Speed wrote: >>>> news.individual.net does that and costs peanuts. >>> news.aioe.org costs nothing, and requires no registration. >> But isnt anything like as reliable. > It's more rock-solid than apparently you realize.
It hasnt been in the recent past. It remains to be seen if it is for long.
> I use it as my full-time and only nntp server, and > I use it heavily several times a day, every day. > In the 3+ years that I've been using it like that, there have been 2 > or 3 times when it's been down for perhaps a few days to a week,
news.individual.net hasnt ever been down in that time.
> and the really bad time when it was down from Dec. 16 to Jan 30.
And that is completely fucked.
> I wouldn't put up with a flaky server, and AIOE is definately not flaky or unrealiable.
You've just proven that it is just that. That is an utterly obscene downtime.
> Unless you also use it at least a dozen times per day (or way > more, like I do) you can't really speak authoritatively about it.
Just did, and it turns out I was spot on and you proved that in spades.
Rod Speed wrote: > > It's more rock-solid than apparently you realize.
> It hasnt been in the recent past. It remains to be seen if it is > for long.
What do you consider "recent" ??
> > In the 3+ years that I've been using it like that, there have > > been 2 or 3 times when it's been down for perhaps a few days > > to a week,
> news.individual.net hasnt ever been down in that time.
As an outfit that charges for it's service, I would never expect it to be down.
What we are considering here is what is an acceptible up-time for a free and completely anonymous usenet service.
You can't speak authoritatively about that, because you don't and probably never have used aioe (specifically) as your only nntp server.
> > and the really bad time when it was down from Dec. 16 to > > Jan 30.
> And that is completely fucked.
Yes it was. And as a result, I used another free server during that time.
You can't really make a case that a fee-based NNTP service is better than a free service in terms of up-time, because there is always one free service that is always up.
If you want to make your case based on retention or coverage of binary groups, then that's another scale. Huge retention (even for text groups) is useless in my opinion unless some provision for searching it is made available to the end user (presumably via a web interface).
> > I wouldn't put up with a flaky server, and AIOE is definately > > not flaky or unrealiable.
> You've just proven that it is just that. That is an utterly > obscene downtime.
It's being run by one person, as a hobby. I think it has great total up-time.
> > Unless you also use it at least a dozen times per day > > (or way more, like I do) you can't really speak > > authoritatively about it.
> Just did,
Just did what?
You did not and can not speak authoritatively about it because you don't use it.
> and it turns out I was spot on and you proved that in > spades.
In your fractured mind.
I pay less for usenet access than you do, and I experience the same product that you do. That makes me a better consumer than you, here in misc.consumers.
Bert Hyman wrote: > > Are you saying that aioe is not well maintained or is not > > equivalent to eternal-september when it comes to free servers?
> Yes.
> AIOE is a harbor for spammers and worse.
Where exactly do people get that wrong impression?
I've been using AIOE for 3 years.
I scan through 4 or 5 dozen newsgroups regularly.
If I see any spam, it pretty much never comes from AIOE itself.
I see spam being injected by Microsoft's server (microsoft.public. spam that is) and google and other usenet servers.
Please give me a Message ID or a link (google groups) pointing to a spam that was injected by the AIOE server.
If you don't, then you are just full of bullshit, and promoting the lie that AIOE is a source of usenet spam.
The AIOE server has implimented several different posting restrictions to prevent spam, and it has had these in place for several years, and these methods are no different (and possibly even more stringent) than what other free servers use.
krw wrote: > > news.aioe.org costs nothing, and requires no registration.
> ...and is the home of spammers and other crackpots, thus blocked > by a large number of Usenet regulars.
Another lie.
Give me a source that mentions that a "large number of usenet regulars" block AIOE posts.
Apparently, you don't block AIOE posts.
Where exactly do people get that wrong impression?
I've been using AIOE for 3 years and I've NEVER come across a discussion where my posts were not seen by someone in the thread for that reason.
I know that there is often mention that people will block / filter posts from google groupers. But not AIOE.
I scan through 4 or 5 dozen newsgroups regularly.
If I see any spam, it pretty much never comes from AIOE itself.
I see lots of spam being injected by Microsoft's server (microsoft.public. spam that is) and google and other usenet servers.
Please give me a Message ID or a link (google groups) pointing to a spam that was injected by the AIOE server.
If you don't, then you are just full of bullshit, and promoting the lie that AIOE is a source of usenet spam.
The AIOE server has implimented several different posting restrictions to prevent spam, and it has had these in place for several years, and these methods are no different (and possibly even more stringent) than what other free servers use.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:39:23 -0500, Sum Guy <S...@Guy.com> wrote: >Bert Hyman wrote:
>> > Are you saying that aioe is not well maintained or is not >> > equivalent to eternal-september when it comes to free servers?
>> Yes.
>> AIOE is a harbor for spammers and worse.
>Where exactly do people get that wrong impression?
Bert said nothing wrong. AIOE *is* safe harbor for spammers and other kooks.
>I've been using AIOE for 3 years.
Figures. Ok, that wasn't fair - you're not a spammer.
>I scan through 4 or 5 dozen newsgroups regularly.
Whoopie.
>If I see any spam, it pretty much never comes from AIOE itself.
You're blind.
>I see spam being injected by Microsoft's server (microsoft.public. spam >that is) and google and other usenet servers.
>Please give me a Message ID or a link (google groups) pointing to a spam >that was injected by the AIOE server.
DO your research? Not likely.
>If you don't, then you are just full of bullshit, and promoting the lie >that AIOE is a source of usenet spam.
It is, whether you like it or not.
>The AIOE server has implimented several different posting restrictions >to prevent spam, and it has had these in place for several years, and >these methods are no different (and possibly even more stringent) than >what other free servers use.
Key words; "other free servers". Don't use a free server; they're not.
> Rod Speed wrote >>> It's more rock-solid than apparently you realize. >> It hasnt been in the recent past. It remains to be seen if it is for long. > What do you consider "recent" ??
That 3+ years of yours below is fine.
>>> In the 3+ years that I've been using it like that, there have been 2 >>> or 3 times when it's been down for perhaps a few days to a week, >> news.individual.net hasnt ever been down in that time. > As an outfit that charges for it's service, I would never expect it to be down.
In fact its only recently started charging and charges peanuts.
It was just as reliable when it was free.
> What we are considering here is what is an acceptible > up-time for a free and completely anonymous usenet service.
Nope, because it was free very recently and only costs peanuts now.
> You can't speak authoritatively about that, because you don't and > probably never have used aioe (specifically) as your only nntp server.
Dont need to have used it as the only one to know how reliable its been.
>>> and the really bad time when it was down from Dec. 16 to Jan 30. >> And that is completely fucked. > Yes it was. And as a result, I used another free server during that time.
So did I, nin.
> You can't really make a case that a fee-based NNTP > service is better than a free service in terms of up-time, > because there is always one free service that is always up.
Mindlessly silly.
> If you want to make your case based on retention or coverage of > binary groups, then that's another scale. Huge retention (even for text > groups) is useless in my opinion unless some provision for searching > it is made available to the end user (presumably via a web interface).
You're wrong, particularly with those who only use usenet occassionally.
Plenty of decent usenet clients have decent search capability.
>>> I wouldn't put up with a flaky server, and AIOE is definately not flaky or unrealiable. >> You've just proven that it is just that. That is an utterly obscene downtime. > It's being run by one person, as a hobby.
Thats just the reason for that utterly obscene downtime.
> I think it has great total up-time.
More fool you. You wouldnt know what a reliable news server was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>>> Unless you also use it at least a dozen times per day (or way >>> more, like I do) you can't really speak authoritatively about it. >> Just did, > Just did what?
Speak authoritatively about it.
> You did not and can not speak authoritatively about it because you don't use it.
Dont need to use it personally, ALL I need is data about its reliability.
>> and it turns out I was spot on and you proved that in spades. > In your fractured mind.
In reality.
> I pay less for usenet access than you do,
Peanuts less. And my time has a value, even if yours doesnt.
> and I experience the same product that you do.
Like hell you do. Yours has some examples of uttery obscene downtime.
And the clown that 'runs' it has stupid ideas about censorship too.
> That makes me a better consumer than you, here in misc.consumers.
> Bert Hyman wrote >> Check out http://www.eternal-september.org/ . >> It's a free service and it's well maintained. > Are you saying that aioe is not well maintained
It clearly isnt with the utterly obscene down time you yourself reported.
krw wrote: > Bert said nothing wrong. AIOE *is* safe harbor for spammers and > other kooks.
And until you can dig up even one example of a usenet spam that came from aioe, then you're both full of horse shit.
You klowns either work for one of the fee-based usenet servers or you're trying to justify why you pay money to them. Either way, your attempt to smear aioe is pathetic.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:03:36 -0500, Sum Guy <S...@Guy.com> wrote: >krw wrote:
>> Bert said nothing wrong. AIOE *is* safe harbor for spammers and >> other kooks.
>And until you can dig up even one example of a usenet spam that came >from aioe, then you're both full of horse shit.
I don't keep spam, but you're welcome to collect whatever floats your boat.
>You klowns either work for one of the fee-based usenet servers or you're >trying to justify why you pay money to them. Either way, your attempt >to smear aioe is pathetic.
I use Individual, as you'd know if you had half a brain. I pay them a grand total of 10EUR/year. Yeah, that's the reason I hate AIOE, because I pay so much for Usenet service instead of using a "free" spam and kook encrusted service that too many have blocked. Yeah, that's it. What a moron.
>> You're blind.
>Go ahead - prove it to me.
What a moron. You are blind.
>Post a MID proving that AIOE harbors spammers.
AIOE harbors all sorts of troublemakers. Look in a mirror, fool.
> Rod Speed wrote >>> As an outfit that charges for it's service, I would never expect it to be down. >> In fact its only recently started charging and charges peanuts. > You can't even lie properly.
We'll see...
> Individual.net started charging on April 1, 2005.
Thats recently, fool.
> What kind of game do you want to play, comparing it's > service down-time pre-2005 with AIOE post 2006 ?
Thats no game, thats reality, fool.
> Do you have nothing better to do then to raise straw men to argue with?
You wouldnt know what a real straw man was if one bit you on your lard arse.
>> It was just as reliable when it was free. > Cite.
alt.free.newservers
>>> What we are considering here is what is an acceptible >>> up-time for a free and completely anonymous usenet service. >> Nope, because it was free very recently and only costs peanuts now. > Very recently for you is 4 years ago?
Yep, I've been using it for a hell of a lot longer than that, fool.
>>> You can't speak authoritatively about that, because you don't and >>> probably never have used aioe (specifically) as your only nntp server. >> Dont need to have used it as the only one to know how reliable its been. > Post your logs or notes here showing individual.net's uptime pre-2005.
Dont need either. alt.free.newservers will do fine.
> Otherwise, there's noting but hot-air coming from you.
You're lying, as always.
>> Dont need to use it personally, ALL I need is data about its reliability. > Then I don't have to believe your claims about individual.net back when it was a free server.
Yep, even someone as stupid as you can check alt.free.newservers using groups.google anytime.
> You'll do anything to lie just to tell the other guy he's wrong.
You reported the utterly obscene downtime of aioe yourself, fuckwit.
>>> and I experience the same product that you do. >> Like hell you do. Yours has some examples of uttery obscene downtime. > There is always a free server that is up and running.
Irrelevant to whether aoie is up and running.
> That's why my statement is correct.
Nope, its a lie.
> I do experience the same product and I pay nothing for it.
I use a MUCH more reliable product and pay peanuts for it and dont have to put up with some arsehole censor either.
|
