6 ms·
Usenet also didn't have a good way to deal with spam, at least not one that I knew about. It steadily became harder to find the signal in the noise. It still h
by oddthink 14y ago
Usenet also didn't have a good way to deal with spam, at least not one that I knew about. It steadily became harder to find the signal in the noise.
It still had the best reader experience. I don't know why modern email clients, for example, don't look more like trn.
- DanBC 14y agoUsenet had a strict definition for spam, which meant a bunch of stuff got through. It was also under active attack from Hipcrime and similar. And no matter how good the killfiles were there were people who wouldn't use them. I agree about the clients - I really liked slrn.
- derleth 14y ago> Usenet also didn't have a good way to deal with spam Nobody really does. The only way you can keep a channel spam-free is to have humans spend time monitoring it to keep the spam out, which is a huge cost asymmetry in favor of the spammers. Anything algorithmic gets gamed and, eventually, broken entirely.