[106614] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Is Usenet actually dead?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Rubenstein)
Wed Aug 6 14:55:27 2008
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:54:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0808061844110.3713@pop.ict1.everquick.net>
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@corp.nac.net>
To: "Edward B. DREGER" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>,
"Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
We operate a transit box, and there are still quite a few of them out
there. Pushing hundreds and hundreds of megs.
http://news.anthologeek.net/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward B. DREGER [mailto:eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:48 PM
> To: Robert E. Seastrom
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Is Usenet actually dead?
>=20
> RES> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:19:44 -0400
> RES> From: Robert E. Seastrom
>=20
> 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. :)
>=20
> Usenet - binaries - flames - spam =3D pretty close to "actually dead"
>=20
> ;-)
>=20
>=20
> 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.
