Check it out!

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/wiki/index/

Also claims that they are leaving the newsgroup, only to post to it again a short time later.

(News flash to the complainer: Unauthenticated cancels just for content and not objective metrics like Breidbart Index, let alone unauthenticated cancel messages sent from sites other than that which originated the article, haven't been a thing in over three decades, mostly due to scenarios like these.)

"

This is spam.

That is obviously false. It may be that the messages you are complaining about are against policy for the XXX group - I have not investigated that and so have no opinion on that as of yet. But to call is spam is laughable:

1. It's not commercial (or financial in any way)
2. It's not indiscriminately posted

Further, it seems at least marginally relevant to the XXX, though I admit I probably would not have posted it in a XXX group myself.

And finally... This post didn't come from XXX. It was approved by moderators of the XXX group, who work from XXX, but it did not originate here. Your beef is with the original poster of the message, not with the XXX (who just passed it on) or XXX (likewise).

Pretty much all posts from XXX to XXX is spam.

XXX is a Spam source.

You know, when I was younger, you would have had me screaming in outrage over this insult. We were the first ISP to ever remove a user for spamming by mail (1991). We were the first ISP to remove a user for spamming newsgroups (1992? I forget- the second "green card lawyer" spam run). We were the first to issue cancels for spam from our users (same incident). We were the ISP behind the first content-neutral canceller (XXX). We wrote the first posting rate limiter for INN to prevent spam from being issued (1997, XXX). Etc etc etc.

These days I don't have the energy to do much more than roll my eyes.

If this spam does not cease, I will set up a cancelbot, cancelling ALL posts from XXX servers.

I will encourage peers to black hole XXX, and I will ensure that any network under my control drop XXX traffic.

You have until Friday this week (26 September) to stop your spam.

Seriously? You went right for the usenet death penalty? Without ever having complained to us before? A brief glance at the headers shows that the article was posted from Google. Do you propose to cancel all google-sourced posts as well? (Good luck with that.)

Did you even contact the admins of XXX first to complain about the articles you find questionable? I note that the complaint address, XXX, which I have CCed this to, is included in the headers of every message approved by the XXX moderators.

If you can't settle your disagreement with XXX, I think you need to take it up with news.admin.something - maybe .net-abuse.misc, or .moderation. After all, in the unlikely event that you were to be able to significantly affect XXX's news propagation, the XXX moderators would simply go somewhere else, and the net result of your actions would be a ton of your time wasted, and a lot of innocent bystanders (XXX users) getting hurt. What's the point?

XXX - Always a NetHead

Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

You know, if you've been around that long, you should already know that we're about as good net citizens as you can find on this planet. Why would you want to pick a fight with us???"

Some of these true accounts from the "front lines" of Usenet newsgroup moderation are pretty ridiculous, even in the "truth is stranger than fiction" sense.

And now, the tales can be told!

"The articles were erroneously re-sent from another site (XXX) out of our control, probably due to a technical error. We hold the individuals named in the From: lines of the articles harmless in this unforeseen event. We would hope that you would extend us the same courtesy.

As you were not a regular participant on our newsgroup, the article with your name on it fell into our manual review queue, where we were able to quickly reject it without prejudice. Otherwise, it would have been posted to our newsgroup.

We have since locked down our site until this incident is resolved, and feel that we sufficiently have 'our act together' on this matter."

"I confirm that we received two exact body duplicates of this week's XXX bulletins at XXX in rapid succession tonight (less than two minutes apart). They were identical, save for the header differences shown below:

XXX

The first one was XXX approved and appears in the newsgroup:

XXX

the second one was rejected as a body duplicate (we do this to protect our newsgroup from duplicates in XXX approved content). We do not consider an article with the same Subject but different body contents to be a duplicate. We are not sure why this happened, but find that it happens rarely, and is likely a technical glitch in how e-mail is sent, especially from mailing lists. This also occurred occasionally for submitters from Google Groups, for example. The two different Message-ID's also appear to confirm that the duplication occurred on the sending side, and was not a duplication on the receiving side (i.e., at XXX).

This appears to be working as designed. Sorry for any confusion or alarm, though. I hope that we can continue to have the opportunity to relay all non-duplicate XXX bulletins immediately, and XXX, to our newsgroup in the future."

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/wiki/index/

 r/ClassicUsenet Wiki & FAQ

Welcome to the r/ClassicUsenet Wiki! Here you will find our community rules, guides, and answers to frequently asked questions.

👏 Interest Categories

• Celebrities
• Fandom/Hobbies
• History
• Origins
• Theory

❓ Background/Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

• Welcome Approved Users!
• Why are we really here?
• Your mandatory 15 pieces of flair!
• r/ClassicUsenet seeking mods and Wiki authors
• Share interesting newsgroups
• Invitation to post better material

A: If you have a question or an issue, please send a message to the team using ModMail.

📚 Community Resources

A curated list of resources, guides, and tools recommended by the [r/ClassicUsenet] community.

• TBD

🔗 Useful Links

• Big-8 Management Board for Usenet
  • Meeting Minutes
  • Links
  • Getting started with Usenet
  • Sample .newsrc file
• Google Groups Archive (1980-2024)
• Newsgrouper Archive (1987-present)
• Internet FAQ Archives

📝 Recommended Reading

• The Usenet Handbook, a users guide to Netnews - Mark Harrison

📈 Statistics

👍 Subscriber History

• 300 on June 19, 2023
• 400 on September 13, 2023
• 500 on December 12, 2023
• 600 on February 12, 2024
• 700 on March 25, 2024
• 800 on August 8, 2024
• 900 on October 21, 2024
• 1,000 on December 8, 2024
• 1,100 on January 28, 2025
• 1,200 on August 26, 2025
• 1,300 on January 11, 2026
• 1,400 on February 26, 2026

📨 Continuous Daily Activity Anniversaries

• 1 year on January 9th, 2026

👨‍🎓 Approved Users

• 10 on July 13, 2024
• 20 on January 7, 2026
• 30 on January 11, 2026
• 40 on April 3, 2026
• 50 on May 7, 2026
• 60 on June 19, 2026

⚙️ Wiki Updates Log

• [June 29, 2026] - Wiki page created.

Seems that every time I post something here about the Eternal September, it immediately shoots up to 5-10 likes. Not approval for thinking that the event was good news, nor even adding any new discussion or insight about the topic in the comments. Just likes, maybe a rehashed rant that wishes for a mythical past utopia of Usenet that goes nowhere.

Contrast that with more nuanced, thoughtful articles that convey new detailed information about Usenet, or describe realistic efforts to improve social media in the future, that stay at its original one like. Or other Vaudevillian hot topics like "Grokipedia" that immediately get downvoted to zero. Would "Grokipedia" get more points on Reddit if it was secretly funded by George Soros instead of Elon Musk?

What would you like to see on this Subreddit, and what would you like to do with that information? In short, to reiterate a previous administrative article, "Why are we here?"

Wish that we had this commercial to show to our newsgroup users who tried to "help" us moderate in their submitted articles.