It's been 11 days since we got anything but spam from china in this
newsgroup.

On 31/10/2010 6:02 PM, Bob Badour wrote:
Don't worry, contributions of all kinds from that country are only bound
to increase. What is noticeable to me is the lack of anything new from
other countries.

paul c wrote:

So, right on cue, we get one from India. double sigh

On 1 nov, 03:02, Bob Badour <bbad... (AT) pei (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote:
Do the other google groups get that spam too ? If yes, why is it that
it doesn't really seem to annoy the others enough to do something
about it ? (Could it be that they do not suffer from the problem of
complete lack of -what they consider- meaningful discussion, and that
that makes a significant difference ?) And if no, how come this is
so, and how do they avoid it ?

On 01/11/2010 2:47 PM, Erwin wrote:
It seems that not all usenet servers propagate the spam on the google
server, eg., the bellsouth one I've been using since the local ISP
dropped usenet doesn't (looks to me that you are posting to a google
server). I presume there is some manual intervention by people running
other servers, maybe this is why more and more ISP's and other
organizations are dropping their NNTP support.

Heh, I guess twenty years ago the NNTP users were an elite as well as a
minority of the population, now they are merely a minority.

Bob Badour wrote:
I also see lots of spam through Google Groups, but not through a local
NNTP-server that I normally use. Strange.

--
Troels

On 3 nov, 02:12, paul c <anonym... (AT) not-for-mail (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Maybe this is the very same reason why end-users should stop relying
on information that has been passed onto them by any RFC protocol that
is below 8192 ?

But hey then again I am biased. I am an ACF2 guy who got to
understand why RACF is bad stuff to trust...

The three pillars of security, you know, proper identification, proper
authentication,and proper authorization ...

(With 'proper authorization' amounting to the set of {'proper
identification', 'proper authentication'} being properly applied to
both 'available resources' and 'available manipulators'.)

On 03/11/2010 4:07 PM, Erwin wrote:
Never heard of that one, the only bell 8192 rings is that I usually got
myself tied into knots whenever I exceeded two base registers. OTOH, I
got one job because I knew how to use more than one.


And here I thought you were just a kid (albeit a smart one). Or maybe
there are still some kids who go into that arcane stuff, if I knew any
I'd try to discourage them!

The ORANGE book stuff was just to disguise a game vendors had to play in
order to sell to the US federal gov't. At one job, I worried about
satisfying it until a boss clued me in, assured me that our very simple
mechanisms would be proved to gov't satisfaction by our many marketing
people. A real nightmare was trying to get rid of a sysprog who put SMF
hooks into a lock manager! Probably his next idea would have been to
put security hooks into it as well. No idea if the ORANGE book is still
mandated but I still think relational data modelling could have made it
more comprehensible, useful and simple.

If there is nothing more in the db theory field to talk about, maybe
this group will start to cover the stuff that a.f.computers used to
cover, just joking (a little). Maybe Lynn W will jump in here.

On 1 nov, 02:37, paul c <anonym... (AT) not-for-mail (DOT) invalid> wrote:
of perception in Western current database industry ?