Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
>
> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
> seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
> four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
> maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.

I did indeed!

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

In article >,
says...
>
> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today?

It's not just ES users; others have commented too.

janet

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:21:34 -0700, sf > wrote:

>
>Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
>seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
>four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
>maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.

That happened to me about a week ago -- something like 600 messages on
Agent.
Janet US

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 18:42:05 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
>> seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
>> four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
>> maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.
>
>I did indeed!

Me too but they were all from google I think.

Lou

On 4/3/2012 7:21 AM, sf wrote:
>
> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
> seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
> four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
> maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.
>

G**gle stopped relaying messages posted on their domain from last
Thursday to yesterday. Some newsgroups, like this one, were not affected
much. In others which have a lot of GG posters, it was very noticeable.
It was still posting Usenet messages, in essence, making Usenet a subset
of GG. It was an interesting experiment. My guess is that sooner or
later, it's going to be a permanent arrangement.

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:15:08 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

> On 4/3/2012 7:21 AM, sf wrote:
> >
> > Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
> > seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
> > four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
> > maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.
> >
>
> G**gle stopped relaying messages posted on their domain from last
> Thursday to yesterday. Some newsgroups, like this one, were not affected
> much. In others which have a lot of GG posters, it was very noticeable.
> It was still posting Usenet messages, in essence, making Usenet a subset
> of GG. It was an interesting experiment. My guess is that sooner or
> later, it's going to be a permanent arrangement.

Okay, thanks. Well, that will eliminate the spam from GG's issue
then. There are enough free news readers and free to almost free news
servers that those who want to stay with us can do so.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Apr 3, 10:21*am, sf > wrote:
> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? *It
> seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
> four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
> maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.
>
> --
> Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Just go back to Google Groups!

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:25:39 -0700, meh > wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:21:34 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>>
>>Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today?
>
>NOT an E-S problem, a Google groups problem (surPRISE!).
>
>They were disconnected for several days, then sent everything at once
>when they got reconnected.
>

No surprise there!! That's why I bailed GoogleGroups finally. They
suck something incredible!

John Kuthe...

On 4/04/2012 5:29 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:25:39 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:21:34 -0700, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today?
>>
>> NOT an E-S problem, a Google groups problem (surPRISE!).
>>
>> They were disconnected for several days, then sent everything at once
>> when they got reconnected.
>>
>
> No surprise there!! That's why I bailed GoogleGroups finally. They
> suck something incredible!
>
> John Kuthe...

You were, however, a very slow learner! One could say retarded!

Even when you had good advice re GG, you persevered.

Worse, you filled RFC up with your bleating messages.

--

Krypsis

meh wrote:
> sf > wrote:
>
>>Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today?
>
> NOT an E-S problem, a Google groups problem (surPRISE!).
>
> They were disconnected for several days, then sent everything at once
> when they got reconnected.

That has happened in the past. Both Google and E-T are free and worth
far more than that. Shrug.

What I noticed is far more google sourced spam made it through the E-T
spam filters than usual. I can go days only seeing one or two spam
messages then boom this time several dozen.

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 06:46:09 +1000, Krypsis >
wrote:

>On 4/04/2012 5:29 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:25:39 -0700, > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:21:34 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today?
>>>
>>> NOT an E-S problem, a Google groups problem (surPRISE!).
>>>
>>> They were disconnected for several days, then sent everything at once
>>> when they got reconnected.
>>>
>>
>> No surprise there!! That's why I bailed GoogleGroups finally. They
>> suck something incredible!
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>
>You were, however, a very slow learner! One could say retarded!
>
>Even when you had good advice re GG, you persevered.
>
>Worse, you filled RFC up with your bleating messages.

I know, I liked GG's format, originally. Then they changed it, and
YUCK! So I got used to Free Agent's format and presentation.

But I never "filled up" RFC, duh!

John Kuthe...

sf > wrote in news:l4cmn7hg0vl1mnvgs2du0k5go0e64osla6@
4ax.com:

>
> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
> seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
> four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
> maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.
>



I actually got that same thing here on Bigpong.

Had messages going back to 30Apr show up..... which was good because I
missed a couple :-)



--
Peter
Tasmania
Australia

dsi1 > wrote in news:jlfend$fm0$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 4/3/2012 7:21 AM, sf wrote:
>>
>> Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
>> seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
>> four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
>> maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.
>>
>
> G**gle stopped relaying messages posted on their domain from last
> Thursday to yesterday. Some newsgroups, like this one, were not affected
> much.



Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! No *wonder* I could see some messages on GG, and not on
the here.



--
Peter
Tasmania
Australia

On 03/04/2012 4:46 PM, Krypsis wrote:

>>
>> No surprise there!! That's why I bailed GoogleGroups finally. They
>> suck something incredible!
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>
> You were, however, a very slow learner! One could say retarded!
>
> Even when you had good advice re GG, you persevered.
>
> Worse, you filled RFC up with your bleating messages.
>

Kuthe has a history of filling the group with bleating messages,

sf > wrote:

>
>Did anyone else on E-S get a flood of 2-4 day old posts today? It
>seems like E-S has been messing up longer than that, but I downloaded
>four times the usual number of new messages with no flood of spam so
>maybe they've fixed whatever has been wrong.

don't blame E-S. I'm on . . . . crap, brain fart-- the Berlin server
for $12 a year. Very reliable, at any rate.

They were all google, so I suspect it was a google burp, not ours.
[and since I noticed a few posters that use google that I like to read
I'm not going to kf the server, much as I'd like to]

Jim

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 21:52:13 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 03/04/2012 4:46 PM, Krypsis wrote:
>
>>>
>>> No surprise there!! That's why I bailed GoogleGroups finally. They
>>> suck something incredible!
>>>
>>> John Kuthe...
>>
>> You were, however, a very slow learner! One could say retarded!
>>
>> Even when you had good advice re GG, you persevered.
>>
>> Worse, you filled RFC up with your bleating messages.
>>
>
>Kuthe has a history of filling the group with bleating messages,

"Filling" is not the correct word. One cannot "fill" a newsgroup.

John Kuthe...

On 4/4/2012 5:51 PM, meh wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:40:46 -1000, > wrote:
>
>
>> My point was that it's in G's interest to not relay posts to Usenet. Why
>> is it nit in G's interest? Because they lose control of the messages
>> once it goes out of their domain. It's not rocket science. Is this good
>> or bad for Usenet? I don't know - it just is what it is. I don't have
>> any feelings good or bad about this.
>
> The entire purpose and design of newsgroups is the widest dissemination
> of a post, so as many people as possible can view it.

Usenet could disappear tomorrow and few people would know anything about
it. As far as dissemination of info goes, there's always Facebook, or
Twitter, or Youtube, and others. There's no such thing as a viral post
or a Usenet post heard round the world.

>
> What would GG be showing if they DIDN'T connect with the rest of the
> worlds news servers??

Beats me, it's surprising that they find it worth their while to bother
with Usenet.

>
>
>
>
>
>

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:51:02 -0700, meh > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:40:46 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
>
>
>>My point was that it's in G's interest to not relay posts to Usenet. Why
>>is it nit in G's interest? Because they lose control of the messages
>>once it goes out of their domain. It's not rocket science. Is this good
>>or bad for Usenet? I don't know - it just is what it is. I don't have
>>any feelings good or bad about this.
>
>The entire purpose and design of newsgroups is the widest dissemination
>of a post, so as many people as possible can view it.
>

Agreed. But although their company motto is 'do no harm' or some
such, Google is *still* a publicly held corporation whose bean
counters are *only* interested in a profit.

>What would GG be showing if they DIDN'T connect with the rest of the
>worlds news servers??
>

They seem to be suffering the same delusions that AOL held for years--
'We're big enough that our people will be happy only talking to each
other'.

That-- and Google is just juggling too many balls in the air at once.

I'm not a Google basher, but I wish they would quit changing, adding,
an 'innovating' just for the sake of change.

Jim

dsi1 wrote:

> > What would GG be showing if they DIDN'T connect with the rest of the
> > worlds news servers??
>
> Beats me, it's surprising that they find it worth their while to bother
> with Usenet.

I'm sure Google doesn't benefit financially. I think they did it just
to "give something back", as the expression goes. If the company were
ever to tumble from its current pinnacle of profitability, they might
suspend non-paying projects like Usenet.

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
> I'm not a Google basher, but I wish they would quit changing, adding,
> an 'innovating' just for the sake of change.
>
> Jim

I wish all software would quit with the changing or at least still provide
for the old versions. They constantly "improve" with new versions just to
keep the income flowing. People that get the new, reinvent their websites,
then old things don't work. You're mostly forced to upgrade whether you
want to or not.

On 4/5/2012 12:47 AM, George M. Middius wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>
>>> What would GG be showing if they DIDN'T connect with the rest of the
>>> worlds news servers??
>>
>> Beats me, it's surprising that they find it worth their while to bother
>> with Usenet.
>
> I'm sure Google doesn't benefit financially. I think they did it just
> to "give something back", as the expression goes. If the company were
> ever to tumble from its current pinnacle of profitability, they might
> suspend non-paying projects like Usenet.
>

I think you're right about them dropping Usenet - they do seem to like
to trim their herd of Toys every once in a while.

I recently changed my cell service and initially was using an iPhone
over the Sprint network. The iPhone was not able to transfer my contact
list from my old Android device. I only got about 30% transferred to my
phone. A few days ago, I decided to switch the iPhone for a
Google-Android Motorola Photon 4G phone and was surprised to see my
complete contact list appear on my phone. It seems my old Android phone
backed up the contacts on a Google cloud server. Thanks Google!

On 5/04/2012 1:51 PM, meh wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:40:46 -1000, > wrote:
>
>
>> My point was that it's in G's interest to not relay posts to Usenet. Why
>> is it nit in G's interest? Because they lose control of the messages
>> once it goes out of their domain. It's not rocket science. Is this good
>> or bad for Usenet? I don't know - it just is what it is. I don't have
>> any feelings good or bad about this.
>
> The entire purpose and design of newsgroups is the widest dissemination
> of a post, so as many people as possible can view it.
>
> What would GG be showing if they DIDN'T connect with the rest of the
> worlds news servers??
>
>
That they are control freaks????

--

Krypsis

Yes its really an awesome and amazing amazing work done that i ever found here
very best and massive work done it is



________________________
Bankruptcy Lawyer Seattle

dsi1 said to sqwishy:

> My guess is that you're a bigger crackpot than even I can imagine.

I've never heard "crackpot" used as a euphemism for a**hole before.

On 4/5/2012 8:46 AM, George M. Middius wrote:
> dsi1 said to sqwishy:
>
>> My guess is that you're a bigger crackpot than even I can imagine.
>
> I've never heard "crackpot" used as a euphemism for a**hole before.
>
>

I'm a great fan of euphemisms since they allow a polite, socially
acceptable way, of expressing an idea. We don't have to call a person an
asshole, we can say "an adamant individual of an advanced age who enjoys
speaking his mind." See? How nice.

Of course, I'm not using the word "crackpot" in such a way. Any guy
that's hates/uses Google and dislikes the word "guess*" and takes the
time to do research and analysis on the number of times a word is used
and brags about the size of his KF yet can't seem to control his
impulses and feels compelled to look at posts that displeases him is
pretty much a crackpot of sizable proportions.






* #2473

sqwishy plays grammer kop.

> Run on sentence with too many "and"'s stringing all that babbling
> together. Gush much?

You're so testy lately. Is Queen Mary such a disappointment?

On 4/6/2012 11:00 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> I've tried Agent - I don't care for it. The reason you hear so many
> problems with T-bird is because so many folks use it. Complaining about
> Agent would be like complaining about how you can't find any inner tubes
> for your car tires.
>

OTOH, T-bird is getting into some very shaky ground by going the Firefox
route and allowing plug-ins into the programs. Tabbing is a great idea
in a browser - maybe not so in an email program. If this is not the way
to bloating and instability, I don't know what is. I may have to find
another mail client soon. Guess* I'm kinda resistant to change too.






*#7479

dsi1 said to Queen Mary:

> Ain't you one of those guys that called me out for saying that tablets
> would be the next big thing and didn't you say that there's no such
> thing as a browser based Chrome OS? Nice calls. You probably still
> believe that major appliance manufactures all make their own special
> little parts that work only on their machines. I would expect no less
> from a car salesguy. People like you deserve to remain stupid and ignorant.

Mary doesn't like to be exposed as a small-minded blowhard. Prepare to
be excommunicated.

On 4/6/2012 2:37 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
> dsi1 said to Queen Mary:
>
>> Ain't you one of those guys that called me out for saying that tablets
>> would be the next big thing and didn't you say that there's no such
>> thing as a browser based Chrome OS? Nice calls. You probably still
>> believe that major appliance manufactures all make their own special
>> little parts that work only on their machines. I would expect no less
>> from a car salesguy. People like you deserve to remain stupid and ignorant.
>
> Mary doesn't like to be exposed as a small-minded blowhard. Prepare to
> be excommunicated.
>
>

Well, I feel like I'm losing my religion sometimes. That's the breaks.

In article >, dsi123
@hawaiiantel.net says...
>
> On 4/6/2012 11:00 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> > I've tried Agent - I don't care for it. The reason you hear so many
> > problems with T-bird is because so many folks use it. Complaining about
> > Agent would be like complaining about how you can't find any inner tubes
> > for your car tires.
> >
>
> OTOH, T-bird is getting into some very shaky ground by going the Firefox
> route and allowing plug-ins into the programs. Tabbing is a great idea
> in a browser - maybe not so in an email program. If this is not the way
> to bloating and instability, I don't know what is. I may have to find
> another mail client soon. Guess* I'm kinda resistant to change too.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *#7479

I never used Thunderbird to read newsgroups. I like my email to be my
email only.

But I agree, it's getting to be real bloatware.

On 4/6/2012 6:33 PM, T wrote:
> In >, dsi123
> @hawaiiantel.net says...
>>
>> On 4/6/2012 11:00 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> I've tried Agent - I don't care for it. The reason you hear so many
>>> problems with T-bird is because so many folks use it. Complaining about
>>> Agent would be like complaining about how you can't find any inner tubes
>>> for your car tires.
>>>
>>
>> OTOH, T-bird is getting into some very shaky ground by going the Firefox
>> route and allowing plug-ins into the programs. Tabbing is a great idea
>> in a browser - maybe not so in an email program. If this is not the way
>> to bloating and instability, I don't know what is. I may have to find
>> another mail client soon. Guess* I'm kinda resistant to change too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *#7479
>
> I never used Thunderbird to read newsgroups. I like my email to be my
> email only.
>
> But I agree, it's getting to be real bloatware.
>

I got an error message from my T-Bird today saying that a Javascript was
causing an instability in the program and the message recommended that I
restart the program in a safe mode. That was a new one on me. I didn't
know that the program had a safe mode nor did I know it ran Java since
I've never installed any add-ons. T-bird - it once was a beautiful,
simple, thing.

OTOH, I believe that big Swiss army knife client programs that do a
number of different things like this will be gone soon. Like it or not,
our future will be small computers running web programs and small client
apps. I'm also warming up to the idea that the future of gaming, even
hard-core gaming, will be done on tablets. I know, it sounds nutty!