North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Is Usenet actually dead?
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:48 PM > To: Robert E. Seastrom > Cc: nanog@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Is Usenet actually dead? > > 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@xxxxxxxxx -*- jfconmaapaq@xxxxxxxx -*- sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. > Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.