Reclaiming this group for Java enthusiasts

Discussion in 'Java' started by softwarepearls_com, Sep 29, 2008.

  1. I've been thinking how to stop the spamming criminals from raising the
    noise levels of this group to the point that serious Java programmers
    give up and go elsewhere. (BTW I access the group through
    groups.google.com, YMMV).

    One idea which could work is to artificially lower c.l.j.p's radar
    profile for a while (a week, 2 weeks?) so that c.l.j.p temporarily
    becomes a low activity group. I think it's the current high activity
    which attracts the creeps (probably automatically) to spam our group
    to oblivion.

    Any ideas why this wouldn't work?

    I'm also wondering why giants such as Google don't step in to tackle
    all this blatant off-topic spam. Guess they must be making money from
    their ads posted alongside the articles.
    softwarepearls_com, Sep 29, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. softwarepearls_com wrote:
    > I've been thinking how to stop the spamming criminals from raising the
    > noise levels of this group to the point that serious Java programmers
    > give up and go elsewhere. (BTW I access the group through
    > groups.google.com, YMMV).


    Short answer: you don't. The only possible countermeasure would be
    moderating, and this is too high-traffic to be moderated.

    > One idea which could work is to artificially lower c.l.j.p's radar
    > profile for a while (a week, 2 weeks?) so that c.l.j.p temporarily
    > becomes a low activity group. I think it's the current high activity
    > which attracts the creeps (probably automatically) to spam our group
    > to oblivion.
    >
    > Any ideas why this wouldn't work?


    Suppose lowering its activity worked. Two weeks later, it'd be high
    activity again and the spammers would come roaring back. Besides, my
    analysis is that a spam list has a half-life of around 3-5 months.

    A quick round among some other Usenet groups show that activity does not
    really have a major effect on signal/noise ratio.

    > I'm also wondering why giants such as Google don't step in to tackle
    > all this blatant off-topic spam. Guess they must be making money from
    > their ads posted alongside the articles.


    Google is probably more concerned with people sending email spam than
    Usenet spam, since the former is going to be a lot more noticed. If
    you've not noticed, the era of ISPs providing free Usenet access is
    drawing to a close.

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
    tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
    Joshua Cranmer, Sep 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sep 29, 4:31 pm, softwarepearls_com <>
    wrote:
    > I've been thinking how to stop the spamming criminals from raising the
    > noise levels of this group to the point that serious Java programmers
    > give up and go elsewhere. (BTW I access the group through
    > groups.google.com, YMMV).


    You have just explained your problem, in the parentheses. Currently I
    am not able to use my normal well-designed standards-compliant
    newsreader. Because of that, instead of thinking that Google provides
    a bad user unierface to Usenet, I _know_ that it does.

    Get a proper newsreader, configure it thoughtfully, and your problem
    will dwindle into moderate insignificance.
    --
    (c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Posting with Google.
    Mail: J.R.""""""""@physics.org or (better) via Home Page at
    Web: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/>
    FAQish topics, acronyms, links, etc.; Date, Delphi, JavaScript, ....|
    Dr J R Stockton, Sep 29, 2008
    #3
  4. softwarepearls_com

    Tim Slattery Guest

    softwarepearls_com <> wrote:

    >I've been thinking how to stop the spamming criminals from raising the
    >noise levels of this group to the point that serious Java programmers
    >give up and go elsewhere. (BTW I access the group through
    >groups.google.com, YMMV).


    99% of the spam comes from google groups.

    >One idea which could work is to artificially lower c.l.j.p's radar
    >profile for a while (a week, 2 weeks?) so that c.l.j.p temporarily
    >becomes a low activity group. I think it's the current high activity
    >which attracts the creeps (probably automatically) to spam our group
    >to oblivion.


    >Any ideas why this wouldn't work?


    In the first place, there's no way to do it. There is no central
    authority that can cut postings to this group. There are thousands of
    Usenet servers accepting posts and trading posts with each other.

    >I'm also wondering why giants such as Google don't step in to tackle
    >all this blatant off-topic spam.


    See my first response. Nearly all the spam in the Usenet groups I
    frequent comes through googlegroups. Google doesn't seem to care.

    --
    Tim Slattery

    http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
    Tim Slattery, Sep 29, 2008
    #4
  5. softwarepearls_com

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    softwarepearls_com wrote:
    > I've been thinking how to stop the spamming criminals from raising the
    > noise levels of this group to the point that serious Java programmers
    > give up and go elsewhere. (BTW I access the group through
    > groups.google.com, YMMV).


    Get a newsreader that can detect spam and not show it to you.

    And don't spend any time thinking about it.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Oct 4, 2008
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Thomas Rast

    Reclaiming (lots of) memory

    Thomas Rast, Oct 2, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    551
    Luis P Caamano
    Oct 22, 2004
  2. CJ

    Reclaiming locks

    CJ, Oct 29, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    322
    David Schwartz
    Oct 30, 2007
  3. Jrdman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    317
  4. Mario
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    145
  5. ChrisH
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    126
    ChrisH
    Jan 25, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page