Is Usenet actually dead?

Alex Rubenstein alex at corp.nac.net
Wed Aug 6 13:54:35 CDT 2008


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 at noc.everquick.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:48 PM
> To: Robert E. Seastrom
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> 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 at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net
> Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
> Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software
backscatter.




More information about the NANOG mailing list