[106612] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is Usenet actually dead?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Edward B. DREGER)
Wed Aug 6 14:51:25 2008
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:47:39 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Edward B. DREGER" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
In-Reply-To: <867iavd2fj.fsf@seastrom.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
RES> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:19:44 -0400
RES> From: Robert E. Seastrom
RES> If trends have continued since last I looked at it, very manageable
RES> after you take out the binaries. Insignificant if you could figure
RES> out a way to get rid of the flames and spam. :)
Usenet - binaries - flames - spam = pretty close to "actually dead"
;-)
Eddy
--
Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
________________________________________________________________________
DO NOT send mail to the following addresses:
davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net
Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
