nanog mailing list archives
RE: Is Usenet actually dead?
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex () corp nac net>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:54:35 -0400
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? 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.
Current thread:
- Is Usenet actually dead? Jay R. Ashworth (Aug 04)
- Re: Is Usenet actually dead? Gadi Evron (Aug 04)
- Re: Is Usenet actually dead? Florian Weimer (Aug 04)
- Re: Is Usenet actually dead? Jay R. Ashworth (Aug 04)
- Re: Is Usenet actually dead? Robert E. Seastrom (Aug 05)
- Re: Is Usenet actually dead? Edward B. DREGER (Aug 06)
- RE: Is Usenet actually dead? Alex Rubenstein (Aug 06)
- Re: Is Usenet actually dead? Jay R. Ashworth (Aug 04)