End of day 6/1 and this group is still here
in [Windows Viruses]
|
Prev: Trojan
Next: Help...I'm infected!!
From: David H. Lipman on 2 Jun 2010 22:36 From: "Geoff" <geoff(a)invalid.invalid> | On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 20:12:51 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> | wrote: >>Your observation is flawed, depending on what you're trying to say to >>the Usenet community. | My observation is not flawed. It's an observation. Your conclusion | about its meaning is flawed. | The Microsoft server is losing groups per their policy of deleting the | least active groups first. It is abundantly clear that the servers on | the rest of Usenet are not following the policy, per the arguments and | predictions presented previously. Yes. The 1st to go was; microsoft.public.arabic.iis -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: JD on 2 Jun 2010 23:07 Leythos wrote: > In article<a3nd06pi70bsb710afhftfhgo7e9dq0e5f(a)4ax.com>, > geoff(a)invalid.invalid says... >> >> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 09:37:57 -0400, Leythos<spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> wrote: >> >>> In article<0ukc0659bc6r5gcba6oi2uc8rgn1c64j3s(a)4ax.com>, >>> geoff(a)invalid.invalid says... >>>> This morning, the count is 1742. >>>> >>> >>> Since most technical people, at least those that have a clue, don't use >>> the direct MS servers, it doesn't really matter what MS does on their >>> own servers. >> >> Agreed, I am merely citing a statistic as I find it. Sort of like >> watching a balloon deflate. As I post this the count is 1606 groups >> remaining. > > My provider shows 1919 microsoft.public groups, same as before, same as > last week.... > > Your observation is flawed, depending on what you're trying to say to > the Usenet community. > You're posting through your newsgroup server, No? news.astraweb.com msnews.microsoft.com is killing their newsgroups a bit at a time, according to Geoff's data. The number of microsoft newsgroups your provider has shouldn't be changing. Only the ones msnews has are shrinking. We all seem to agree that microsoft.public.sucurity.virus is not going away but the server msnews.microsoft.com is going away. As we all know, usenent rules! 8-) -- JD..
From: Leythos on 3 Jun 2010 09:23 In article <h84e06tc03era6bm726j64lckjn1d5e9r6(a)4ax.com>, geoff(a)invalid.invalid says... > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 20:12:51 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > > >Your observation is flawed, depending on what you're trying to say to > >the Usenet community. > > My observation is not flawed. It's an observation. Your conclusion > about its meaning is flawed. > > The Microsoft server is losing groups per their policy of deleting the > least active groups first. It is abundantly clear that the servers on > the rest of Usenet are not following the policy, per the arguments and > predictions presented previously. Why would you doubt that MS is going to delete the groups from their servers? They said they would, so talking about how many have been removed from their servers is meaningless - what's important is that the Usenet community is not taking orders from MS. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Geoff on 3 Jun 2010 09:40 On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 09:23:10 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote: >In article <h84e06tc03era6bm726j64lckjn1d5e9r6(a)4ax.com>, >geoff(a)invalid.invalid says... >> >> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 20:12:51 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Your observation is flawed, depending on what you're trying to say to >> >the Usenet community. >> >> My observation is not flawed. It's an observation. Your conclusion >> about its meaning is flawed. >> >> The Microsoft server is losing groups per their policy of deleting the >> least active groups first. It is abundantly clear that the servers on >> the rest of Usenet are not following the policy, per the arguments and >> predictions presented previously. > >Why would you doubt that MS is going to delete the groups from their >servers? They said they would, so talking about how many have been >removed from their servers is meaningless - what's important is that the >Usenet community is not taking orders from MS. Wow, you are dense, aren't you? Where did I say I doubted it? The point is that just as argued to MEB in the "The End of m.p.s.v" thread, MS is killing off NGs and will kill their servers as stated but the rest of Usenet isn't. Sheesh. 1394 groups remain on MS's servers 300 gone now, no change on E-S, or Easynews.
From: Leythos on 3 Jun 2010 13:09
In article <mebf06tfv6orvjvgsfvuhpkn5v14t9rdp9(a)4ax.com>, geoff(a)invalid.invalid says... > > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 09:23:10 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > > >In article <h84e06tc03era6bm726j64lckjn1d5e9r6(a)4ax.com>, > >geoff(a)invalid.invalid says... > >> > >> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 20:12:51 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Your observation is flawed, depending on what you're trying to say to > >> >the Usenet community. > >> > >> My observation is not flawed. It's an observation. Your conclusion > >> about its meaning is flawed. > >> > >> The Microsoft server is losing groups per their policy of deleting the > >> least active groups first. It is abundantly clear that the servers on > >> the rest of Usenet are not following the policy, per the arguments and > >> predictions presented previously. > > > >Why would you doubt that MS is going to delete the groups from their > >servers? They said they would, so talking about how many have been > >removed from their servers is meaningless - what's important is that the > >Usenet community is not taking orders from MS. > > Wow, you are dense, aren't you? Where did I say I doubted it? > > The point is that just as argued to MEB in the "The End of m.p.s.v" > thread, MS is killing off NGs and will kill their servers as stated > but the rest of Usenet isn't. Sheesh. > > 1394 groups remain on MS's servers 300 gone now, no change on E-S, or > Easynews. Dense? You mean that understanding that MS is going to discontinue Usenet services from THEIR SERVERS and actually believing they will do it? MS is not killing "News Groups" (overly broad brush), they are killing their servers and the groups within THEIR SERVERS, the groups live on around the world on thousands of Usenet servers, since MS can't force anyone to stop carrying them. It's not like anyone expected MS to keep their own servers running after they said they would close them, so it really doesn't matter what or how quickly they remove groups from their servers. I guess what I'm trying to impart to you is that no-one cares how many groups are left on MS's own servers, they've made it clear that they will be gone in short order and there is no point in counting them daily. What would be important is if/when OTHER usenet providers stop carrying them. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) |